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