Cul De Sac’s

I’ve found myself in an intellectual cul-de-sac after discovering the solar wind is comprised of protons and also electrons travelling in the same direction in the solar electric field.  Either the space probes are simply picking up the presence of electrons in a non-vectorial fashion, meaning the sensor simply registers the presence of electrons, not their direction, and then there is therefore no problem, or the electron presence is sensed by a direction sensitive sensor, and then there is a big problem. The problem is thus in the ‘pending’ tray.

I recently purchased a text “What is the Electron” and discover that there are at least 9 different explanations, and perhaps more, for the electron.  I also acquired an E-Text, Models of the Atomic Nucleus by Norman D. Cook (published by Springer) in which there are an even greater number of models for the nucleus than for the electron, none of which alone can explain all the observations of the nucleus.

To borrow from the late Fred Hoyle, we seem to be thinking with the wrong ideas, so I have decided to go back to the early days of physics, JJ Thomson’s time, for example. and discover how we ended up in this most peculiar situation.  What startled me a little was Cook’s remark that scientists who study the electron form one category of research whose measurements of electron phenomena involve forces many times greater in magnitude than those measured for nuclides; the two camps, electron and proton, simply don’t meet, or they do at Xmas and then it’s a right-hand not understanding what the left-hand is doing.

I suspect the origin of the problem lies further back to Isaac Newton’s time when he formulated his laws of motion and gravitation, and what an object explicitly was in his understanding.  It is a topic I have occasionally touched on indirectly, but I suspect much of the present confusion in physics lies in what is understood to be a Newtonian body.  I also suspect that confusion has resulted from extrapolating Newton’s observations to the sub-atomic realm.

So future posts will focus on finding an exit from the cul-de-sac I’m in.

About Louis Hissink

Retired diamond exploration geologist. I spent my professional life looking for mineral deposits, found some, and also located a number of kimberlites in NSW and Western Australia. Exploration geology is the closest one can get to practicing the scientific method, mineral exploration always being concerned with finding anomalous geophysical or geochemical data, framing a model and explanation for the anomaly and then testing it with drilling or excavation. All scientific theories are ultimately false since they invariably involved explaining something with incomplete extant knowledge. Since no one is omniscient or knows everything, so too scientific theories which are solely limited to existing knowledge. Because the future always yields new data, scientific theories must change to be compatible with the new data. Thus a true scientist is never in love with any particular theory, always knowing that when the facts change, so too must he/she change their minds.
This entry was posted in Geophysics, Philosophy, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Cul De Sac’s

  1. johnm33 says:

    Louis It doesn’t help much but skip to page 102 of the pdf where someone takes a closer look at the electron.
    http://www.eso-garden.com/specials/the_secret_life_of_nature.pdf

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s