From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity
On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 19:43:23 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:
Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> wrote or quoted:
| The
|evidence for the positron is a lot stronger than the evidence for say |quarks.
There is plenty of evidence for Harry Potter and his broomstick.
We probably shouldn't think of these particles as something out
there on their own. They're more like tools we came up with so
we could build devices that work off those ideas. So, it's really
about whether a certain particle actually /comes in handy/.
The positron turned out to be pretty useful. Just look at the PET
(Positron Emission Tomography) scanner. There's a lot of solid proof
that PET scanners have helped save lives by letting doctors spot
how diseases are moving along and see if treatments are working.
Checked that out. Looks like it works on radioactive injections and
consequent radiation. Nowhere is it said that positrons are radiated
like say beta rays.
Simply calling it pet does not prove the existence of positrons. Just as calling fast computing quantum computing does not prove quantum theory.
(We look back now and think folks way back were clueless for
believing planets moved around the sun on /epicycles/. But
honestly, the ancient astronomers who came up with epicycles
- like Apollonius of Perga, Hipparchus, and especially Ptolemy -
didn't actually buy into that! They knew those were just /handy
tools/ for figuring out where the planets would be later on.)
--
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2