Gravage,
I'll get back to your other replies, but I just want to consider this one about tracks in the bubble chamber, quickly:
I'm fine with your saying that we can't observe any actual particles causing the tracks in the bubble chamber. But then, the question remains: how are the tracks to be explained?
Do we throw up our hands and say that no explanation of these tracks is possible? That they will forever remain a mystery? Because this is what you seem to be arguing for.
Again, because of limited perception, limited observations of limited pieces of reality/ealities, everything what you try to explain is simply wrong, I simply gave up explaining the universe, if you cannot see the entire reality from the loewst level to the highest level-because of the mentioned limitations, even that is directly observationally proven is wrong because it is misinterpreted, because you simply cannot see the whole picture, you only see its tiniest parts.
Besides, I have seen those experts for the brain what they told, we can never see the reality the way it is because of our vast limitations-and that is the key point in all of my posts.
Sure we can make hypotheses and create incredible technologies, but hypotheses behind to explain the universe are simply useless-when you are so much limited-and math does not solve anything if you cannot prove it in the first place-I mean really prove it, that you actually directly observe that it behaves, exactly the way mathematics describes it-and that was never the case, it is never the case now, and it never will never be the case in the future.
What I would say is that these tracks, and how they appear to be formed, look as if something is entering the bubble and chamber and ploughing through the stuff in there leaving tracks. So, what I would do is to create an imaginary mental picture of what might be happening. Imagine, I would say, if there were tiny little particles travelling through the chamber, hitting particles already there, and via a particular string of interactions eventually producing the visible tracks we observe.
I actually welcome this, but it doesn't change the facts-it's unprovable, again I do like hypotheses of all kinds, but none has the right to say this proven or this is disproven.
I could go further and model these imaginary particles as having imaginary properties like electrical charge and mass. I can then test whether the model is any good by using it to predict what tracks I will see when I do a particular experiment that creates these imaginary particles. If the tracks that I see in the real experiment match what my model predicts, then the model is good at explaining the tracks. If the observed tracks are different from the prediction, then the model is bad and needs to be modified or thrown away.
I already explained here above why such reasoning is wrong.
Notice that at no point above to I claim that any of the particles in my model are real. If I say something like "this track in the bubble chamber was caused by an electron", I'm not saying that electrons are real. What I'm really saying is that the imaginary model I have constructed, which contains a theoretical thing that I have called "an electron", accurately predicts the real tracks I see in the bubble chamber.
Again I explained everything above, plus here is a copy of my answer to Ophiolite:
This is where physicists and mathematicians cannot see the difference between mathematical pseudo-evidences and directly observational real world evidences and than they all lose their boundaries-and they are presenting as something mathematical that is actually proven, when it is not; not even the slightest-scientists should analyze and interpret exactly what direct observations of experiments actually prove, not what mathematics "proves" that is beyond what experiments actually show that is actually, truly proven-facts.
Can you see that it doesn't actually matter whether there is a "real" electron or not, if my aim is only to understand how the bubble chamber will behave in any particular observation? The idea of an electron is just a convenient way to visualise what is happening.
Why it would be, who says it's convenient-if you dig about something that you can never actually directly observe and experience, than everything you do with mathematics is a waste of time and money and it's misguiding people all over the world that scientists know that much, which in fact they do not know nothing, they only have unprovable matehamtical models to start with and that's about it-again the only good thing trials and error and with mathematical models are new technologies.
And ye, mathematical models are also trials and error since they are directly unprovable on all levels, in all forms, in all ways.
You ought to realise that it is impossible to do science without a model like this. If you try, you're just stamp collecting: here's a set of tracks in a bubble chamber; here's a different set of tracks; here's a third set of tracks, different again. Without a model, there's no unifying principle that explains how all three sets of tracks came about.
Again, just for the record, this is why I said there is no true science for a very long time, and that these models are good for technologies, but you have no right to tell people everywhere in the world, that the models are correct and directly proven with direct observations and direct studying-when none of these is actually true.
Your models are your opinions-and that's about it, you or anyone else does not have any right to cliam to people everyhwere in the world that you have proven this or that in the first place.
Just for the record, for me Big Bang hypothesis is truly awesome, but one thing is model and one thing is reality of evidences and what is exactly proven, plus the fac that something cannot come from nothing in the first place.
The same kind of thing applies to virtually all important questions in science. We observe that the sky is blue and the grass is green. That's stamp collecting. But why is the sky blue, and why is the grass green? If we want a theory that explains both of those observations, we need some kind of model for light and how it behaves. Suppose we describe light as waves. If that picture can explain why the sky is blue and the grass is green, then it's a useful model - particularly if it can also explain why the sunset is red, for example. But does that mean that light is really waves? Do we care?
True scientists should always be careful on what "evidences" they represent as actuall, real-world evidences-that's a true science, so yes, you should care, everyone should care in the first place-if your models cannot see the real truth and cannot prove anything concrete and real-just say it, none will be angry on you, none, just admit the damn truth about your mathematical models that are simply truly unprovable-and all upper limits on how much can actually be proven has passed long time ago.
There is no shame in it, none would be angry on you because of all benign uses that your unprovable models have brought to society in every day life, scientists in the past should be proud of this, these today's scientists are simply working for large corporations and there is nothing good in it.
Suppose you do care about how things "really" are. Suppose you want to know what really causes tracks in the bubble chamber. Perhaps you can tell me how you propose to find that out. What are you going to do to prove that electrons aren't real, and that the tracks are really caused by ... whatever it is you think causes them?
Or are you going to insist that the tracks are forever a mystery and that we shouldn't use scientific models and we should all give up on this whole useless "science" thing and go back to good old trial and error?
I already answered you; everything in science and the entire science is based on trials and errors, and so are all the models and that includes all science and all scientific, hypothetical models-the very fact-that all of mathematical models are 100% unprovable (as I explained here above and in previous posts to all other posters) and yet they can be used for every day implementations absolutely proves my key points-models are unprovable and it also means they are wrong, but they are usable for implementations for every day lives.
