Do electrons exist?

[chimp3]

I am not a scientist but I am going to assume that this touch screen Kindle I am tapping has something to do with electrons. Same with the charger it is plugged into.

[Silver]

I keep reading the title as Do elections exist?

[bennyboy]

It's not just semantics, you are simply wrong.  The observer effect does not mean what you think it means.

As I said, not my idea.  You can watch that video or not, and agree or not.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't have to watch any video to know that this is a very common misconception of what the term means.

---

In physics, the observer effect is the theory that simply observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes that phenomenon. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. Similarly, it is not possible to see any object without light hitting the object, and causing it to reflect that light. While the effects of observation are oftentimes negligible, the object still experiences a change. This effect can be found in many domains of physics, but can usually be reduced to insignificance by using different instruments or observation techniques.

An especially unusual version of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as best demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that even passive observation of quantum phenomena (by changing the test apparatus and passively 'ruling out' all but one possibility), can actually change the measured result. A particularly famous example is the 1998 Weizmann experiment.[1] Despite the "observer" in this experiment being an electronic detector—possibly due to the assumption that the word "observer" implies a person—its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[2] The need for the "observer" to be conscious has been rejected by mainstream science as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process,[3][4][5] apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

It's not about "watching", it's not about us. Air coming out of a tire when you check the pressure is "the observer effect". Light hitting an object is "the observer effect". Any material interaction which necessarily alters a phenomena is "the observer effect". Any two particles interacting in this way, absent anyone or anything watching them, are "observing" each other.

[bennyboy]

Yeah, but you are not bothering to know what the point was. The point was about the nature of entanglement. Not sure what you're up to right now, but you're arguing with the wind. I seriously doubt you'd find any cause to disagree with what the guy actually said.

[The Grand Nudger]

Any entanglement caused by the proximity of a human being to some phenomena would just be another case of air coming out of a tire.

If you have something else in mind, create a term for it, and stop using the term "observer effect" to launder your misconceptions.

[bennyboy]

Any entanglement caused by the proximity of a human being to some phenomena would just be another case of air coming out of a tire.

If you have something else in mind, create a term for it, and stop using the term "observer effect" to launder your misconceptions.

Let me be crystal clear.

I'm not saying whatever it is you think I'm gearing up to say, and neither was the guy in the video.  Here it is again.  The bit I was talking about starts at 9:15 with the punchline being at 9:50.  If you are not willing to engage with the material I was talking about, then say something original enough to provide intellectual interest, or as usual I reserve the right not to respond to you.

[Smaug]

Recently I took a class at university called “Systems analysis”, and that was when I fully realized everything we create is a model around a system. So, based on experiments, we know “something” exists, and based on the properties we describe it, and give it a name. So we have electrons. But even though we describe them, we don’t really know what they are. Which as a scientist and future researcher, this is a scary idea because how can I think about the behavior of things I can’t see? Almost any hypothesis is valid since I am free to imagine whatever model I want. How do I know I am on the right track when working with forces I can’t see?

Take the duality of light for example. We created 2 models (waves and photons) of this phenomenon. Not because the light actually behaves differently depending on the situation, but because the models complement each other, meaning that they are incomplete individually.

We humans don’t really fully understand anything, we just grasp things using mathematical models, which are often incomplete. It’s somewhat scary.

Science cannot reach 'full understanding' of anything or lead us to any kind of 'complete final truth'. At least it's how it is up to date. The best we can do is to create better models of observable phenomena and to understand how to choose a proper model depending on the conditions.

Since no model can be 'complete' an important task is to figure out its limitations. For the more general models (large theories) it's a complicated and informal process, a source of greatest advances in science. A classical example is how limitations for Rational Mechanics were figured out, i. e. how it was proven incorrect for strong gravitational fields or high velocities and for atomic-scale objects and interactions. This did not make Newton's Mechanics completely obsolete though. It still has a very wide area of applicability.

For the more specialized models some of the limitations are made clear form the problem definition. For example there's generally no need to invoke Quantum Mechanics if you're task is to study orbital motion of satellite around a planet. Other limitations can be figured out using certain formal methods. For example if you created a model of satellite's orbital motion Stability Theory allows to assess if this motion remains close to the initial shape for a given period of time.

Models are just different ways of looking at physical objects or phenomena. Each model highlights certain properties of an object but no model is equal to the object it imitates. Speaking of electron, it's key difference is that there's no 'intuitive model' for it since this object is outside of human range of senses. The only way to 'see' it is through a specially set experiment. It's not only elementary particles which get 'unintuitive'. A 'simple' gyroscope can move in certain ways that are not intuitively expected by great many of people.

[Little lunch]

For me there are two choices.

1. Quantum Theory, when you get down to the nitty gritty, is too boring for me to stay focused for long enough to understand it.

2. I'm not intelligent enough to understand it.

Nevertheless, the way you people talk about it like it's so easy peasy sometimes gets on my goat.

[bennyboy]

For me there are two choices.

1. Quantum Theory, when you get down to the nitty gritty, is too boring for me to stay focused for long enough to understand it.

2. I'm not intelligent enough to understand it.

Nevertheless, the way you people talk about it like it's so easy peasy sometimes gets on my goat.

It's not that it's hard.  It's that it's impossible.  It's definitely not easy peasy.