Re: Is Particle Physics At Risk of Becoming Tautological?

[Ed Schweber <edschweb@IX.NETCOM.COM>]

In response to my original question about [particle physics tautologies Jack
Uretsky replies

> But there is really not much connection between the penultimate >and final
paragraphs.  Apparently Ed is using "particle theory" as >an alias for that
part of weak-interaction theory that deals with >neutrinos.

I was unclear. My talking about neutrino mass was meant to be a sychecdoche
standing in for a whole class of particle theories:
where particles can be written as superpositions of other particles, quarks
can never exist as free particles but only manifest themselves through
various decay mechanisms, etc.

    Let me go further out on a philosophic limb. I tend to think of physics
as an intellectual structure that is isomorphic to empirical reality but not
the same thing.

    Let us stipulate that particle theory is still in some respects
isomorphic to physical reality. But has it developed too much of an internal
clockwork mechanism that can actually be verified. Does it now pass the test
of Okam's razor?

Ed Schweber