Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?



Martha wrote:
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..."

A successful scientific theory is logically sound, but sometimes includes postulates that some people have difficulty accepting. There's a difference between incoherent and distasteful.


they inevitably respond with

"no, Heissenberg's Principle of Uncertainty in quantum mechanics proves
that events can occur without cause, such as virtual particles which
appear out of nothing, so the causeless expansion of the BB is not
incoherent."
===============

And there is a difference between Big Bang advocates on the internet, and the professional community of cosmologists. Some people seem to consider arguments on Usenet to be scientific research.


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." ?

I think you're confusing causation with determinism. Quantum mechanics is strictly causal. For instance, a particle will decay because it can reduce its energy that way. And, all other causes being equal, it will decay faster if the reduction in energy is greater. We might not be able to predict exactly when it will decay, but we know the cause of the decay.

What you are proposing is called a "hidden variables" interpretation of quantum mechanics. And it's not like nobody has ever thought of that one before. Search on scholar.google.com for "hidden variables", 8,980 hits, many to articles that are more than forty years old. Search for "deterministic quantum mechanics" gives 37 hits.


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?

What makes you think that they think otherwise? Arguments with amateurs on Usenet? But it would be blatantly irresponsible to claim that quantum mechanics does not do a remarkably good job at predicting the way things behave. There is a difference between verifying a theory and validating it. And quantum mechanics is a well validated theory.

There is also a difference between the theory, and interpretations of the theory. Or, "What is nature really doing to act the way that quantum mechanics describes?" There are quite a number of interpretations of quantum mechanics, some of which include hidden variables or hidden determinism, and no consensus in the scientific community that any of them must be the right one. Search Google or Google Scholar for "interpretations of quantum mechanics".

If so, then why do BB theorists,
particularly of the Christian sort, act as if "something from nothing"
and "causless events" were beyond rebuttal?

Which BB theorists have you talked to?

I rather think, though, that "particularly of the Christian sort" speaks for itself. Unless they get bogged down in that creationism thing, the Big Bang nicely ties into that "God created the Heavens and the Earth" bit. They don't have to be scientists to form their own opinions about it.


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?

You'll have to ask the individual people in question, once you establish that it is, in fact, their opinion.

.