Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?

Martha a écrit :
I do not hold to the Big Bang theory, therefore I am constantly arguing
with various BB advocates on the internet.

When I say "the BB is incoherent, if the singularity exploded, there
must be a reason..."

they inevitably respond with

"no, Heissenberg's Principle of Uncertainty in quantum mechanics proves
that events can occur without cause,

Which is ridiculous, of course, for the simple reason that they
simply do not understand what Heisenberg's principle is about.

Either they do not really understand it, or else, they purposefully
entertain the confusion.

such as virtual particles which
appear out of nothing, so the causeless expansion of the BB is not
incoherent."
===============

That's the typical line of the Copenhagen school of thought. The dominant school of thought since the 1930's.

My problem with QM at this point is it's refusal to entertain the
otherwise trusty hypothesis that the event occured due to a cause, but
one which we presently cannot detect. Doesn't this popular position in
QM, when carried to it's logical conclusion, make the ridiculous claim
that no matter what discoveries we might make at any time in the
future, we will NEVER be able to find the cause of a virtual particle
appearing, for example, because it's appearence was in fact,
causeless." ?

That's precisely what Heisenberg himself had the gal to assert.

If Quantum Theorists are good scientists, then shouldn't we expect them
to abide by the time-honored rule that no scientific discovery results
in established absolute facts? If so, then why do BB theorists,
particularly of the Christian sort, act as if "something from nothing"
and "causless events" were beyond rebuttal?

Many really believe this non-causal line. Others don't but are
powerless to confront the majority. There are huge vested interests
in the confusion being maintained.

But if we all must adhere to the truth that no scientific advancement
can result in absolute knowledge, but that science is a self-correcting
enterprise, and that what we accept today as a good theory, might be
tossed out the window tomorrow, then why do most BB supporters abandon
this objectivity and rely on current QT as if it was as factual as the
sun on a cloudless day at noon?

My own view is that many just don't care. Many more really believe
that no progress will ever be made at the fundamental level. They have
their carreers and are simply waiting to comfortably retire. Others
are afraid that if their line of "non-research" is found to be a
dead-end, the flow of grants will dry up and they will lose face
and end up without a job. Others deeply believe that no-one but
fully papered physicists has the apparently god-given (in their
view) right to say anything about physics.

That's why many physicists become so aggressive at any attempt at
real fundamental research or any questioning of the non-causal
dead end that they self-rituously defend.

From what I observed, that about sums it up.

André Michaud
.

Quantcast