• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

All that science knows about Reality and how it knows this

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Its a fundamental entity with specific properties that are very well defined mathematically. Its not made out of anything else, since its fundamental, duh.

A fundamental thing is fundamental precisely because its made out of nothing more fundamental. Electron field is one such entity, whose properties are well defined through mathematics as well as how their fluctuations give rise to what appears to us like particles called electrons.
Here is what an electron field's properties are:-
Electron Field Wavefunction = Integral over momentums [ const*Summation Over Spins{a*u(p)*exp(-ipx)+b*v(p)*exp(ipx)}/sqrt(Energy of each momentum value)]

with s=0.5 or -0.5 and correspond to spin. P is the momentum. E is energy. "a" and "b" are properties that help transform an electron from one mode another as the wave fluctuates and "u" and "v" are spinors that keep track of spin transformations. (I am talking about the Dirac field for physicists here).
I get it, it makes the maths work, but it does not answer my question. No intelligent person really believes there is particle that exists that is not made out of anything except its mathematical definition as though there is nothing more to find out about it. It is only phrased that way so that students stop asking questions about something science does not yet know, what is the energy of electrons made of, and of what form does it take.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I get it, it makes the maths work, but it does not answer my question. No intelligent person really believes there is particle that exists that is not made out of anything except its mathematical definition as though there is nothing more to find out about it. It is only phrased that way so that students stop asking questions about something science does not yet know, what is the energy of electrons made of, and of what form does it take.
My reply was the full and complete answer.
Energy and Momentum are not things but properties. Apparently you harbor common misconceptions regarding what science thinks the physical world is. Here is how it goes (as any competent scientist or philosopher will tell you):-

The bedrock of any realist ontology (what exists) is composed of irreducibly fundamental entities (like the electron wave, the quark wave etc in physics) that have irreducible fundamental properties (like energy, momenta etc.) that can be observed but cannot be reduced to anything more fundamental. The task of a realist ontology is to identify and quantify these irreducibly fundamental entities and their fundamental properties and precisely tell us how the various fundamental entities interact with each other to give rise to the phenomena we observe at the non-fundamental scales. This entire information is encapsulated completely for the electron field in the Fermionic wavefunction equation that relates all the properties of this fundamental entity (position, momentum, spin, energy, transformation laws) with each other. That makes it complete. Nothing else needs to be added to this.

Asking what is energy made of is as stupid as asking what is size made of. The question of what are fundamental things and properties made of is to commit a logical fallacy.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
My reply was the full and complete answer.
Energy and Momentum are not things but properties. Apparently you harbor common misconceptions regarding what science thinks the physical world is. Here is how it goes (as any competent scientist or philosopher will tell you):-

The bedrock of any realist ontology (what exists) is composed of irreducibly fundamental entities (like the electron wave, the quark wave etc in physics) that have irreducible fundamental properties (like energy, momenta etc.) that can be observed but cannot be reduced to anything more fundamental. The task of a realist ontology is to identify and quantify these irreducibly fundamental entities and their fundamental properties and precisely tell us how the various fundamental entities interact with each other to give rise to the phenomena we observe at the non-fundamental scales. This entire information is encapsulated completely for the electron field in the Fermionic wavefunction equation that relates all the properties of this fundamental entity (position, momentum, spin, energy, transformation laws) with each other. That makes it complete. Nothing else needs to be added to this.

Asking what is energy made of is as stupid as asking what is size made of. The question of what are fundamental things and properties made of is to commit a logical fallacy.
This is the real world, not the theoretical one, I am not asking about the theory that represents an electron but the actual reality itself. All concepts, such as words, symbols, numbers, etc., are generated by the human mind to represent aspects of reality, or even the totality of reality itself when it comes to religions and cosmology, but the real is forever on the other side of the concepts meant to represent the real.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Asking what is energy made of is as stupid as asking what is size made of.
Well not everyone thinks like you, there are some scientists who consider zero point energy as being composed of EM vibrations at all frequencies whose wavelengths go down to the infinitesimal or some cut off frequency at the very highest theoretically possible. Now this still does not get to the bottom of it, but its more than you were able to provide, and btw, from this one can understand how the concept of aether, dark energy, spirit, etc., could apply as alternative names for the zpe.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Well not everyone thinks like you, there are some scientists who consider zero point energy as being composed of EM vibrations at all frequencies whose wavelengths go down to the infinitesimal or some cut off frequency at the very highest theoretically possible. Now this still does not get to the bottom of it, but its more than you were able to provide, and btw, from this one can understand how the concept of aether, dark energy, spirit, etc., could apply as alternative names for the zpe.
Energy being a scalar can be added together :-
E=E1+E2+E3 etc.
But each part is itself just a smaller amount of the same property, i.e. energy. This is quite similar to somebody saying length of 7 meters is made of 7 smaller lengths each of 1 meter. But that is not the same as answering the question:- What is length made of, is it? That is a nonsensical question, as dimension is a fundamental property (unlike say area which is square of dimensions).
In fact, if you notice the equation
Electron Field Wavefunction = Integral over momentums [ const*Summation Over Spins{a*u(p)*exp(-ipx)+b*v(p)*exp(ipx)}/sqrt(Energy of each momentum value)]

You will notice that the Wave-function has an energy term in the denominator for each value of momentum and it is summed over it in a continuous manner (i.e. integrated). Thus total energy as the continuous sum of energy over each mode of the wave is already contained for the electron wave equation. Thus what you said about the vacuum field (which is a different thing) has already been taken care of in the electron field and it has no bearing on the question what is energy made of, as a fundamental property is not made out of anything else.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
This is the real world, not the theoretical one, I am not asking about the theory that represents an electron but the actual reality itself. All concepts, such as words, symbols, numbers, etc., are generated by the human mind to represent aspects of reality, or even the totality of reality itself when it comes to religions and cosmology, but the real is forever on the other side of the concepts meant to represent the real.
Actual reality is what is observed and what can be inferred from them. That is the real world. Position, momentum, energy, spin and the interrelations encapsulated by the relationships are all very real based on observations and experimentation and predictive power.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Energy being a scalar can be added together :-
E=E1+E2+E3 etc.
But each part is itself just a smaller amount of the same property, i.e. energy. This is quite similar to somebody saying length of 7 meters is made of 7 smaller lengths each of 1 meter. But that is not the same as answering the question:- What is length made of, is it? That is a nonsensical question, as dimension is a fundamental property (unlike say area which is square of dimensions).
In fact, if you notice the equation
Electron Field Wavefunction = Integral over momentums [ const*Summation Over Spins{a*u(p)*exp(-ipx)+b*v(p)*exp(ipx)}/sqrt(Energy of each momentum value)]

You will notice that the Wave-function has an energy term in the denominator for each value of momentum and it is summed over it in a continuous manner (i.e. integrated). Thus total energy as the continuous sum of energy over each mode of the wave is already contained for the electron wave equation. Thus what you said about the vacuum field (which is a different thing) has already been taken care of in the electron field and it has no bearing on the question what is energy made of, as a fundamental property is not made out of anything else.
But your electron field theory is only an attempt to represent the reality called energy, it is not energy. It is the same with all conceptualizations of reality, the description is not real, except as a concept, like the real which is being described is real. More on this as I respond to your following post...
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Actual reality is what is observed and what can be inferred from them. That is the real world. Position, momentum, energy, spin and the interrelations encapsulated by the relationships are all very real based on observations and experimentation and predictive power.
Actual reality is not dependent on observation, it exists regardless. I am not knocking science for the practical knowledge it brings about the workings of the physical world, but it is dualistic knowledge and thus can not apprehend the transcendent underlying unity of universal existence. There is one universe, any distinctions made that treat observed apparent aspects of the universal existence as separate features in their own right, will lead the religious aspirant into error, as they are only artifacts of a dualistic mind, and there lies the reason science can never realize the truth underlying non-duality of absolute reality. I repeat, science has its place, but only through the religious practice of developing a mind that can dwell in non-duality can the answer to my original question about what is an electron made of, or what is energy, be realized.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
So what is the precise form/shape of an Lepton and of what is a Lepton constituted?

A meaningless question in this context. It assumes that an electron *has* a form or shape. It is a quantum field, not a classical particle.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
You have not answered my question, what is the precise form/shape of an Electron and of what is it constituted? If you say it is a field, what is the form/shape of the field and of what is the field constituted, iow what is it made of?

It is a probability field. You are making assumptions that everything has to have a 'form' and be 'constituted' of something. That is a mistake. It assumes that classical categories are appropriate for quantum particles. They are not.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
As for the size of an electron.....

They are seemingly perfectly round spheres...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2011-05-electron-surprisingly-scientists-year.amp


That is a popularization of what was actually going on. The *actual* content is that an electron has no dipole field. Now, dipoles fields in other contexts are produced when there is a lack of spherical symmetry in the charge distribution. The lack of such a dipole field shows that the classical analog of an electron would be spherical. But that is a very bad way to state the actual content here. it is much better to simply say that a single electron shows no dipole field. Quadrupole fields could also be investigated, and they are also expected to be zero.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
But your electron field theory is only an attempt to represent the reality called energy, it is not energy. It is the same with all conceptualizations of reality, the description is not real, except as a concept, like the real which is being described is real. More on this as I respond to your following post...

No, it is NOT attempting to represent energy. The energy of the electron changes the electron field in the way described by that equation. Also, this equation describes the field in a particular basis. There are other, equally fundamental ways to describe the field in other bases.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Actual reality is not dependent on observation, it exists regardless.
While this is disputed let's run with it.
Actual reality can only be known from observation and evidence based reasoned inference from such observations. This is what science is doing. Inferring the nature of actual reality by inference from evidence and observation.
Now please provide your reasons why one should say that the structure of the world that emerges through such evidence based inference is not the actual reality?

I am not knocking science for the practical knowledge it brings about the workings of the physical world, but it is dualistic knowledge and thus can not apprehend the transcendent underlying unity of universal existence. There is one universe, any distinctions made that treat observed apparent aspects of the universal existence as separate features in their own right, will lead the religious aspirant into error, as they are only artifacts of a dualistic mind, and there lies the reason science can never realize the truth underlying non-duality of absolute reality. I repeat, science has its place, but only through the religious practice of developing a mind that can dwell in non-duality can the answer to my original question about what is an electron made of, or what is energy, be realized.
You have undermined your case. If the world is indeed not dualistic, then our observations and reasoning will provide as direct an access to the world as it does to ourselves, bolstering science's argument that what it uncovers is the actual reality.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That is a popularization of what was actually going on. The *actual* content is that an electron has no dipole field. Now, dipoles fields in other contexts are produced when there is a lack of spherical symmetry in the charge distribution. The lack of such a dipole field shows that the classical analog of an electron would be spherical. But that is a very bad way to state the actual content here. it is much better to simply say that a single electron shows no dipole field. Quadrupole fields could also be investigated, and they are also expected to be zero.


The experiments regarding shape of electrons have been performed at Imperial
College in London. Both links are peer reviewed and published in the journal Nature.

Here's the abstract.....



More information: Improved measurement of the shape of the electron, Nature 473, 493–496 (26 May 2011) doi:10.1038/nature10104www.nature.com/nature/journal/v473/n7348/full/nature10104.html

Abstract
The electron is predicted to be slightly aspheric, with a distortion characterized by the electric dipole moment (EDM), de. No experiment has ever detected this deviation. The standard model of particle physics predicts that de is far too small to detect, being some eleven orders of magnitude smaller than the current experimental sensitivity. However, many extensions to the standard model naturally predict much larger values of de that should be detectable. This makes the search for the electron EDM a powerful way to search for new physics and constrain the possible extensions. In particular, the popular idea that new supersymmetric particles may exist at masses of a few hundred GeV/c2 (where c is the speed of light) is difficult to reconcile with the absence of an electron EDM at the present limit of sensitivity. The size of the EDM is also intimately related to the question of why the Universe has so little antimatter. If the reason is that some undiscovered particle interaction breaks the symmetry between matter and antimatter, this should result in a measurable EDM in most models of particle physics. Here we use cold polar molecules to measure the electron EDM at the highest level of precision reported so far, providing a constraint on any possible new interactions. We obtain de = (−2.4 ± 5.7stat ± 1.5syst) × 10−28e cm, where e is the charge on the electron, which sets a new upper limit of |de| < 10.5 × 10−28e cm with 90 per cent confidence. This result, consistent with zero, indicates that the electron is spherical at this improved level of precision. Our measurement of atto-electronvolt energy shifts in a molecule probes new physics at the tera-electronvolt energy scale.

Provided by Imperial College London
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
The experiments regarding shape of electrons have been performed at Imperial
College in London. Both links are peer reviewed and published in the journal Nature.

Here's the abstract.....



More information: Improved measurement of the shape of the electron, Nature 473, 493–496 (26 May 2011) doi:10.1038/nature10104www.nature.com/nature/journal/v473/n7348/full/nature10104.html

Abstract
The electron is predicted to be slightly aspheric, with a distortion characterized by the electric dipole moment (EDM), de. No experiment has ever detected this deviation. The standard model of particle physics predicts that de is far too small to detect, being some eleven orders of magnitude smaller than the current experimental sensitivity. However, many extensions to the standard model naturally predict much larger values of de that should be detectable. This makes the search for the electron EDM a powerful way to search for new physics and constrain the possible extensions. In particular, the popular idea that new supersymmetric particles may exist at masses of a few hundred GeV/c2 (where c is the speed of light) is difficult to reconcile with the absence of an electron EDM at the present limit of sensitivity. The size of the EDM is also intimately related to the question of why the Universe has so little antimatter. If the reason is that some undiscovered particle interaction breaks the symmetry between matter and antimatter, this should result in a measurable EDM in most models of particle physics. Here we use cold polar molecules to measure the electron EDM at the highest level of precision reported so far, providing a constraint on any possible new interactions. We obtain de = (−2.4 ± 5.7stat ± 1.5syst) × 10−28e cm, where e is the charge on the electron, which sets a new upper limit of |de| < 10.5 × 10−28e cm with 90 per cent confidence. This result, consistent with zero, indicates that the electron is spherical at this improved level of precision. Our measurement of atto-electronvolt energy shifts in a molecule probes new physics at the tera-electronvolt energy scale.

Provided by Imperial College London

Yes, I read that. And, like I said, the basic question is one of the dipole moment of the electron. Since the electron is typically thought of to be a point particle, the dipole moment is expected to be zero. This measurement confirms that expectation to within the limits of the measurement.

In string theory, an electron would be a small 'loop', which would be expected to have a dipole moment, but way too small to be observable with these measurements.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
A meaningless question in this context. It assumes that an electron *has* a form or shape. It is a quantum field, not a classical particle.
If that is what you think, then take it up with the authors of the paper linked to upthread in your post #31 Funny, clearly the science is not settled... :)
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
It is a probability field. You are making assumptions that everything has to have a 'form' and be 'constituted' of something. That is a mistake. It assumes that classical categories are appropriate for quantum particles. They are not.
You are merely sprouting monkey knowledge about what you have studied and remembered, besides, a probability field is merely a name coined to represent an observed/detected an aspect of universal reality, it exists independent of the human mind, it is the real on the other side of the mental constructs meant to describe it.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
You are merely sprouting monkey knowledge about what you have studied and remembered, besides, a probability field is merely a name coined to represent an observed/detected an aspect of universal reality, it exists independent of the human mind, it is the real on the other side of the mental constructs meant to describe it.

You can keep telling yourself that. But reality doesn't work the way classical philosophy assumes it must. The concept of forms, ideals, etc are Aristotelian constructs and have been LONG surpassed by actual observations.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
If that is what you think, then take it up with the authors of the paper linked to upthread in your post #31 Funny, clearly the science is not settled... :)

Once again, I explained what the paper is talking about. It is NOT the 'form' or 'shape' that you are imagining. Instead, it is specifically considering the electric field produced by the electron and finding it is spherically symmetric. That is what a dipole moment is all about (EDM in the abstract you gave).
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I get it, it makes the maths work, but it does not answer my question. No intelligent person really believes there is particle that exists that is not made out of anything except its mathematical definition as though there is nothing more to find out about it. It is only phrased that way so that students stop asking questions about something science does not yet know, what is the energy of electrons made of, and of what form does it take.

An electron is, to the best of our knowledge, a fundamental particle. It isn't 'made from' anything else. It is *defined* by how it interacts with the other fundamental particles, like quarks, neutrinos, and photons. The types and strengths of the possible reactions are what makes an electron and electron. Nothing more. Such descriptions are best done mathematically.

That the electric field around an electron is spherically symmetric is part of how an electron interacts with other things (via the electromagnetic force).
 
Top