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

