Electricity And Quantum Physics: Within One's Reach

Apart from the technological structure of modern society, a person's only exposure to electricity might be observing lightning in the sky, seeing electric fish if if they live by certain bodies of water, and encountering static electricity.  Electrical utilization has become so commonplace that it could be taken for granted.  Turning a light switch on closes the circuit to allow the flow of electricity, but outwardly all someone sees is the light bulb suddenly producing light, a useful but commonplace thing.  Charging a phone reverses the flow of electrons from the cathode to the anode, where they are repelled by the surrounding electrons once charging stops and begin flowing to the cathode again.  All that someone outwardly perceives is that a dead or dying phone regains power.

There is no hint of a subatomic world here at the level of visible objects.  There is not even a hint of the atomic model at the macroscopic scale.  Electric flow is tied to electron behavior, and this involves the atom.  Since electrons are some of the individual particle components of atoms along with protons and neutrons (which break down into various quarks), they would of course be subatomic, and since subatomic and quantum physics are the same concept, electricity, on current paradigms, is generated by quantum activity.  Something mistaken to be too esoteric for a willing person to grasp is directly connected to something treated in the opposite way.  Quantum physics is philosophically unverifiable, not incomprehensible.

Yes, hearsay and even direct visual observation are just perceptions.  Stare at a fire, and you do not know that the fire is there because there is no absolute certainty in this kind of perception beyond the immediate mental experience.  The perception exists.  One's mind exists in order to experience perceptions of any kind, illusory or not.  Whether the macroscopic flame is really there, however, is not something that logically follows from sensory perceptions of this kind.  If this is true of what one sees in direct experience, then of course particles that cannot even be directly seen by the mind are uncertain.  This is not the same as there not being a fire, and believing this epistemological truth is not the same as believing it does not exist.

It is not as if the strong force holding quarks into the protons and neutrons of the nucleus, the superposition of electrons, and the electron cloud model are as much as suggested by macroscopic observations, but they are not beyond peoples ability to understand as concepts.  Science, including the more overtly philosophical parts of it, is not particularly difficult to understand.  It is not verifiable beyond subjective perceptions.  It is often only sought out of personal curiosity and does not reveal objective truth, much less the most foundational truths of all such as logical axioms.  Still, all scientific phenomena, though reflection on them is almost always prompted by experience or hearsay instead of logical necessity, are more conceptually accessible than the intimidation of some people would imply.

Many try to make scientific frameworks and probabilities seem beyond the reach of all but some elite group of professionals.  The things which some people take for granted about scientific experiences at the macro scale, though, are not even entirely divided from the more abstract fields like quantum physics that would, on the physical level, underpin the cosmos.  Along with neuroscience and general cosmology, quantum physics would be the most important of all sciences, and it would actually be the foundation of the other two.  Science in all forms is wholly lesser than logic, morality, and God, but it is not beyond a willing person's comprehension.  Anyone who truly appreciates science and not a fallacious and (in this case) elitist attitude about science would celebrate this, not deny it!