neutrinos and the Higgs Boson, and now with dark matter and dark energy,
the event being sought (the identification of the particle or energy source) is
being driven by the mathematical assumption that it exists. This situation
arises when accepted theories do not agree with new observations, and
scientists seek to preserve the theories in their current form by postulating
the existence of previously unknown matter or forces. Ether used to be
considered as real by many for the same reason, as was phlogiston (and I
would put gravitons, the hypothetical fundamental particle that effectuates
the force of gravity, in this list as well). For neutrinos, there was no physical
evidence of its existence before the investigation was started (see my earlier
blog discussing neutrinos) and it certainly did not manifest itself in any
normal observations. No one “saw” a neutrino and said, “hey, I wonder what
that is?”
But for scientists, it’s not enough to see the result, they seek to understand
its rationale. But this doesn’t always work. Just ask a particle physicist
whether an electron is a particle or a wave, and you will get an explanation
that it is both and neither. How it does this, like quantum entanglement
(Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance” which he famously disbelieved), is
really unexplained except through the mathematics of quantum field theory,
although the actions themselves have been repeatedly tested and verified.
Or why there are only two electric charges, positive and negative, as no
theories explain how there are only two. This one always gets physicists
testy, as they resort to explanations such as “no one has ever observed
more than two,” which when you think about it is a pretty lame answer. I
am told that some versions of string theory address this issue, but I can’t
verify that, as my math skills are not up to the task and string theory gives
me a headache – just like calculating the number of angels balanced on the
head of a pin. And how do you account for the fact that particles of
antimatter are indistinguishable from particles of matter moving backwards
P a g e | 284