The title picture above may be considered shocking to some. It outlines what the concepts of the primary sub-atomic particles. However in electrical engineering all sorts of equations are based on them, as is most of the industry on earth. Electrons and protons may or may not be particles in the way we understand it. Perhaps they are something else entirely. Perhaps they are something so analogous to them that the theory, despite not necessarily being truthful, is useful. The truth is that it becomes stranger and stranger. See the picture below.
But that is nothing, the entire Feild of Quantum Mechanics, not including QED so much, is probalistic/ Statistical in nature. I am assured that it can be useful even though not necessarily truthful, unless used in a disengenuos way as is becoming more of a habit in recent times.
Coincidence: Does it happen?
Arnold Sommerfeld’s development of Bohr’s model. Sommerfeld updated the model by making the electron orbits elliptical and adjusting them in accordance with Einstein’s theory of relativity. This all seemed more realistic than Bohr’s simple model at the time.
Today even those who regard electrons as particles tend to now suspect that electrons don’t really orbit the nucleus at all. Modern quantum mechanics says that electrons don’t even occupy an exact position at an exact time. This seems unlikely to be truthful either, certainly even if it were it condemns quantum mechanics to never be scalable, making hopes of a unified Theory on other scales slim to none.
Yet, in 1916, Sommerfeld used his model as the basis for an equation that correctly describes the detailed pattern of colours of light absorbed and emitted by hydrogen. This equation is exactly the same as the one derived by Paul Dirac in 1928 using the modern theory of relativistic quantum mechanics.
Is anything real? That question can remain in the realms of Metaphysics or Philosophy in my opinion. I am in favour of keeping science as prosaic as possible. What can we measure? What can we quantify? Can we establish relationships between the variables? By which degrees of freedom?
I have nothing against using models or using theory to back up a hypothesis or a mathematical proof to try and resolve it. These are fantastic tools for describing, projecting and expanding upon what we can observe and measure in experiments and develop in engineering or industry.
I do think it's important to draw the line at considering the use of some of these tools as hard evidence, or even as solid data. This abuse has been most serious is branches of theoretical physics as with Relativity and String Theory or some of the uses of "information" as a principal in science. The term "Theoretical Evidence" is an oxymoron (like "Military Intelligence") and is usually a good indication that things are about to go awry.
This post was written to clarify my position (That I am not against models in principle) and after some great feedback I recieved following THIS POST.
It's also my attempt to understand where to draw the line on what is useful and where we should exercise caution in what we considered settled before shutting the door on new evidence or taking an arrogant tone when standing in defense of "Settled Science" the way the Church defended it's position in the face of a challenge by Galileo.
