Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Philosophical, Physical and Media Electron

Marko Grba

Published Sep 1, 2019• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

In the contemporary age of everincreasing influence of electronic media as much as on an individual psyche as on the society as a whole, it would be of great value to undertake a detailed analysis of the very foundation of that means of communication: the electron. This means also re-evaluating the notions of modern physics on the nature of matter, most importantly the notions of the quantum field theory and general theory of relativity. Some of the questions discussed are: what is an electron, what does it mean to say it is an elementary particle and, in general, what is the meaning of the notion of the elementary particle? Also, how are signals transmitted via particles, so how is telecommunication possible, and wirelessly? What is the meaning and nature of physical interaction?

Related papers

A philosopher looks at quantum mechanics

Hilary Putnam

Those defile the purity of mathematical and philosophical truthy who confound real quantities with their relations and sensible measures. —ISAAC NEWTON, Principia Before we say anything about quantum mechanics, let us take a quick look at the Newtonian (or ‘classical’) view of the physical universe. According to that view, nature consists of an enormous number of particles. When Newtonian physics is combined with the theory of the electromagnetic field, it becomes convenient to think of these particles as dimensionless (even if there is a kind of conceptual strain involved in trying to think of something as having a mass but not any size ), and as possessing electrical properties – negative charge, or positive charge, or neutrality. This leads to the well-known ‘solar system’ view of the atom – with the electrons whirling around the nucleons (neutrons and protons) just as the planets whirl around the sun. Out of atoms are built molecules; out of molecules, macroscopic objects, scaling from dust motes to whole planets and stars. These latter also fall into larger groupings – solar systems and galaxies – but these larger structures differ from the ones previously mentioned in being held together exclusively by gravitational forces. At every level, however, one has trajectories (ultimately that means the possibility of continuously tracing the movements of the elementary particles) and one has causality (ultimately that means the possibility of extrapolating from the history of the universe up to a given time to its whole sequence of future states).

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Apr 30, 1979•60 citations

Understanding the Electron

Kevin H. Knuth

Well over a century after the discovery of the electron, we are still faced with serious conceptual issues regarding precisely what an electron is. Since the development of particle physics and the Standard Model, we have accumulated a great deal of knowledge about the relationships among various subatomic particles. However, this knowledge has not significantly aided in our understanding of the fundamental nature of any particular elementary subatomic particle. The fact that many particle properties, such as position, time, speed, energy, momentum, and component of spin, are observer-dependent suggests that these relevant variables do not represent properties per se, but rather the relationship between the observer and the observed. That is, they reflect details about how the electron influences the observer, and vice versa. Here we attempt to understand this by considering a simple model where particles influence one another in a discrete and direct fashion. The resulting framework, referred to as Influence Theory, is shown to faithfully reproduce a surprising amount of physics. While it would be naive to assume that the ideas presented here comprise anything resembling the final word on the matter, it is hoped that this work will demonstrate that a simple and understandable picture of particles, such as the electron, is indeed feasible and should be actively sought after.

arXiv:1511.07766•Nov 23, 2015•0 citations

What does it mean?

Jim Baggott

Abstract The strange behaviour of photons described at the end of the last chapter immediately raises all sorts of questions about the meaning of quantum theory. We might be encouraged to look for this meaning by going back to the theory’s mathematical structure: perhaps by trying to find out how we might better interpret some of its elements. However, it is a central argument of this book that, no matter where we look, we are always led back to philosophy. At first sight, this might seem to be an odd thing to claim. After all, modern textbooks on quantum physics and chemistry rarely (if ever) discuss philosophy. We accept that the behaviour of photons is strange, but surely it is something that we can at least study experimentally-do we need philosophy in these circumstances? But this is the whole point. Quantum theory directly challenges our understanding of the nature of the fundamental particles and the process of measurement, and we cannot go forward unless we adopt some kind of interpretation. As we will see, this interpretation has to be based on some philosophical position.

•Apr 16, 1992•0 citations

Quantum Meaning

Richard Healey

Abstract It is a tenet of Copenhagen faith that it is meaningless to say that an electron or other microscopic entity has a position, velocity, or other similar magnitude in the absence of an experimental arrangement capable of measuring its value. Many philosophers will regard this tenet as mistaken, locating the error in a crude operationalism or verificationism. But related constraints on quantum meaning follow naturally from a more promising inferentialist account of content like that of Brandom. Respecting these constraints enables one to purify quantum theory of talk of “measurement,” resolve puzzlement over the ontology of a quantum field theory, and answer Einstein’s question “Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it?”

•Jan 25, 2026•0 citations

Quantum Field Theory for Philosophers

Michael L. G. Redhead

…the quantum theory of fields is the contemporary locus of metaphysical research. (Stein 1970, p. 285) It is now generally recognized that Quantum Field Theory (QFT), after many vicissitudes and a period of almost total neglect, has emerged during the last ten years as a triumphant framework in which to do elementary particle physics. If philosophers are prepared to use current physical theory as a guide to resolving metaphysical questions (and that is a big “If”), then QFT is what philosophers should all be studying. But the subject is notoriously.recondite, and philosophers are busy people, so the objective of the present paper is to cut through all technicalities and try to tell in as straightforward a way as possible just what QFT has to say about “reality”.

PSA Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association•Jan 1, 1982•58 citations

On the Nature of the Electron

J. L. Salpeter

In this paper the concept of the electron as a fundamental particle of modern physics is discussed in relation to Pauli's exclusion principle, wave mechanics, the uncertainty principle, and relativity.

Proceedings of the IRE•Jan 1, 1957•0 citations
In the contemporary age of everincreasing influence of electronic media as much as on an individual psyche as on the society as a whole, it would be of great value to undertake a detailed analysis of the very foundation of that means of communication: the electron. This means also re-evaluating the notions of modern physics on the nature of matter, most importantly the notions of the quantum field theory and general theory of relativity. Some of the questions discussed are: what is an electron, what does it mean to say it is an elementary particle and, in general, what is the meaning of the notion of the elementary particle? Also, how are signals transmitted via particles, so how is telecommunication possible, and wirelessly? What is the meaning and nature of physical interaction?
Those defile the purity of mathematical and philosophical truthy who confound real quantities with their relations and sensible measures. —ISAAC NEWTON, Principia Before we say anything about quantum mechanics, let us take a quick look at the Newtonian (or ‘classical’) view of the physical universe. According to that view, nature consists of an enormous number of particles. When Newtonian physics is combined with the theory of the electromagnetic field, it becomes convenient to think of these particles as dimensionless (even if there is a kind of conceptual strain involved in trying to think of something as having a mass but not any size ), and as possessing electrical properties – negative charge, or positive charge, or neutrality. This leads to the well-known ‘solar system’ view of the atom – with the electrons whirling around the nucleons (neutrons and protons) just as the planets whirl around the sun. Out of atoms are built molecules; out of molecules, macroscopic objects, scaling from dust motes to whole planets and stars. These latter also fall into larger groupings – solar systems and galaxies – but these larger structures differ from the ones previously mentioned in being held together exclusively by gravitational forces. At every level, however, one has trajectories (ultimately that means the possibility of continuously tracing the movements of the elementary particles) and one has causality (ultimately that means the possibility of extrapolating from the history of the universe up to a given time to its whole sequence of future states).
Well over a century after the discovery of the electron, we are still faced with serious conceptual issues regarding precisely what an electron is. Since the development of particle physics and the Standard Model, we have accumulated a great deal of knowledge about the relationships among various subatomic particles. However, this knowledge has not significantly aided in our understanding of the fundamental nature of any particular elementary subatomic particle. The fact that many particle properties, such as position, time, speed, energy, momentum, and component of spin, are observer-dependent suggests that these relevant variables do not represent properties per se, but rather the relationship between the observer and the observed. That is, they reflect details about how the electron influences the observer, and vice versa. Here we attempt to understand this by considering a simple model where particles influence one another in a discrete and direct fashion. The resulting framework, referred to as Influence Theory, is shown to faithfully reproduce a surprising amount of physics. While it would be naive to assume that the ideas presented here comprise anything resembling the final word on the matter, it is hoped that this work will demonstrate that a simple and understandable picture of particles, such as the electron, is indeed feasible and should be actively sought after.
Abstract The strange behaviour of photons described at the end of the last chapter immediately raises all sorts of questions about the meaning of quantum theory. We might be encouraged to look for this meaning by going back to the theory’s mathematical structure: perhaps by trying to find out how we might better interpret some of its elements. However, it is a central argument of this book that, no matter where we look, we are always led back to philosophy. At first sight, this might seem to be an odd thing to claim. After all, modern textbooks on quantum physics and chemistry rarely (if ever) discuss philosophy. We accept that the behaviour of photons is strange, but surely it is something that we can at least study experimentally-do we need philosophy in these circumstances? But this is the whole point. Quantum theory directly challenges our understanding of the nature of the fundamental particles and the process of measurement, and we cannot go forward unless we adopt some kind of interpretation. As we will see, this interpretation has to be based on some philosophical position.
Abstract It is a tenet of Copenhagen faith that it is meaningless to say that an electron or other microscopic entity has a position, velocity, or other similar magnitude in the absence of an experimental arrangement capable of measuring its value. Many philosophers will regard this tenet as mistaken, locating the error in a crude operationalism or verificationism. But related constraints on quantum meaning follow naturally from a more promising inferentialist account of content like that of Brandom. Respecting these constraints enables one to purify quantum theory of talk of “measurement,” resolve puzzlement over the ontology of a quantum field theory, and answer Einstein’s question “Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it?”
…the quantum theory of fields is the contemporary locus of metaphysical research. (Stein 1970, p. 285) It is now generally recognized that Quantum Field Theory (QFT), after many vicissitudes and a period of almost total neglect, has emerged during the last ten years as a triumphant framework in which to do elementary particle physics. If philosophers are prepared to use current physical theory as a guide to resolving metaphysical questions (and that is a big “If”), then QFT is what philosophers should all be studying. But the subject is notoriously.recondite, and philosophers are busy people, so the objective of the present paper is to cut through all technicalities and try to tell in as straightforward a way as possible just what QFT has to say about “reality”.