Particle physics foundation ontology
The particle physics foundation ontology is the system of interlocking scientific claims, commonly held by physicists, which state that all reality is ultimately composed of point-like elementary particles which can be classified. This can be described as a foundation ontology in the sense that it is a claim about "what ultimately exists". The term "particle physics foundation ontology" is non-standard and was invented for the purposes of this article.
The current state of the classification of elementary particles is called the Standard Model and is described in the article about particle physics. It holds that all everyday matter is composed of 4 different particles, and that there are two similar families of 4 particles of higher mass and short lifespan. The fundamental forces are thought to be transmitted by 4-5 other particles. It is unknown whether there are any more classes of particles. Before the Standard Model was established, a bewildering variety of particles had been described; this was sometimes called the "particle zoo".
This article attempts to cover origins, criticisms and objections to this foundation ontology.
Origins
Atomism - the first foundation ontology that assumed any model of "particle physics goes back 2000 years to the Greeks; and Isaac Newton thought that matter was made up of particles in the 17th century. However, it was John Dalton who formally stated in 1802 that everything is made from tiny atoms." - schoolscience, UK
Dmitri Mendeleev's first periodic table in 1869 helped cement the view, prevalent throughout the 19th century, that the natural sciences must assume a foundation ontology of atoms composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons - and nothing else. The atomic nucleus of protons and neutrons was assumed to be an unbreakable unit, with electrons as their only mobile separable particle.
The 20th century explorations of nuclear physics and quantum physics, culminating with proofs of nuclear fission and nuclear fusion, gave rise to an active industry of generating one atom from another, even rendering possible (although not feasible economically) the transmutation of lead into gold. These theories successfully predicted nuclear weapons.
Objections against reductionism
Within physics itself, there are some objections to the extreme reductionist approach of attempting to explain everything in terms of elementary particles and their interaction. These objections are usually raised by solid state physicists. While the Standard Model itself is not challenged, it is held that testing and perfecting the model is not nearly as important as studying the emerging properties of atoms and molecules, and especially large statistical ensembles of those. These critics claim that even a complete knowledge of the underlying elementary particles will not give complete knowledge of atoms and molecules, knowledge that arguably is more important to us.
Reductionists typically claim that all progress in the sciences has involved reductionism to some extent.
Public policy objections
The Standard Model is investigated using enormous (and enormously expensive) particle accelerators. It is often argued that the potential advances do not justify the money spent, and that in fact particle physics takes money away from more important research and education efforts. In 1993, the US Congress stopped the Superconducting Super Collider because of similar concerns, after $2 billion had already been spent on its construction.
Proponents of particle accelerators hold that the investigation of the most basic theories deserve adequate funding, and that this funding benefits other fields of science in various ways. They question the claim that money not spent on accelerators will then necessarily be used for other sciences.
Philosophy of science objection
The late 20th century Cold War arms race prompted scientists in the United States, Soviet Union, and Europe to build particle accelerator technology to literally smash atoms into smaller and smaller bits. Although initially the Soviet Union did not share any beyond the most basic results, for military reasons, gradually tensions eased and the current particle physics zoo became recognized as a product of "normal science" although only a very few experimental apparatus were capable of reproducing results.
Reproducability and falsifiability are central concepts in the philosophy of science, and one may reasonably object to any theory which only a select few can ever test.
Challenges from theoretical physics
String theory models particles as vibrating circular strings in high dimensional spaces, and so challenges the claim that the elementary particles are the smallest possible structures.
Some physics prefer a "field ontology" as opposed to a "particle ontology": ultimately, only fields are thought to exist. However, because of the wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics, it is unclear whether this is truly a different theory.
External links: