Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?

T Wake a écrit :
"srp" <srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:44889291.80705@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
T Wake a écrit :
"srp" <srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:44888AA0.9080108@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Quite refreshing to see plain common sense raising its head
again Ken.
Without being unduly rude, it is often the case that people see common sense when it is simply a matter of someone agreeing with them.
Not in this case. I have had the same view as Hubble and apparently Ken
for quite a long time, and for apparently the same reason : absense
of proof.

Ok, this is still agreement. Common sense is, very often, incorrect in physics. Nature's idea of how things should occure rarely sync with what we humans see and think.

My view on this is that could not possibly make sense to Aristotle
seemed to make more sense to Descartes (more info available), what
seemd to not make sense to Descartes suddenly made more sense to
Newton (more info available), then came Maxwell and all those in
between who understood more bits and pieces from more verified
data having become available, and then Planck, Einstein, de Broglie...

We are still at it and more info has been gathered since, and more
will become available in the future.

We are not at the end of the line.

That said, lack of "proof" is the important point (from a science perspective).

Critically important.

There are lots of aspects of physics (on all scales) which can be seen to defy immediate common sense, although they tend to become clearer with study - this is not always the case.
In all cases I dug to the bottom, I found that when things appeared
to make no sense, it was always due to insufficient verified data
being considered or insufficient verified data being available at
the time of consideration.

Ok, I can't honestly say everything I have learned has ended up "making sense" but the more I study the more sense they make.

Partially this is why I accept the t=0 event as being common sense. Having studied it in detail, pretty much everything we can observe in the universe points towards the cosmos having an "age" and be expanding. For these two to be the case, t=0 had to occur.

Reasonable. Common sense allows gathering non-contradictory data. But
only real physical proof allows confirming the validity of the
conclusion.

Even in a steady state universe there is the question of when did it begin.

Yes.

Ideally a theory which fills the cracks of "Big Bang" will do it without creating more of its own.

I don't personally see not identifying the primal cause at this time in
human history as being a "crack" in any theory. At most, a lack of
sufficient information at this moment.

My conclusion in this regard is that things always become clear and
always make sense when sufficient data has been gathered and considered.

Fair point.

Although apparently unrelated, I have a view that separate
confirmation that the pioneer axial spin so-called "anomaly"
(that I have just heard about) is not an anomaly at all,
may go a long way to do away for good with the Doppler
interpretation of the Hubble red shift.
That would be an interesting change to cosmology. For a start it would cause all manner of problems regarding the age of the universe and the results from parallax measurements (as these all "agree," a flaw would have implications throughout)
Total agreement. Maybe more than you think.

For such a "groundbreaking" paradigm shift in cosmology, there would need to be some major proof.

Yes.

While it is possible to dismantle each of the subsets of the t=0 event as marking the start of the universe, overall they form a fairly solid "belief."

Granted, but not based on incontrovertible proof that the Hubble red
shift is due to Doppler effect.

While each individual observation, experiment or prediction may (on its own) look weak, the fact that there is a body of them gives it more credence.

No denying that. The whole package seems self-consistant.

If you dismantle one part of the building, you need to ensure (unlike Jeff Relf for example) that you arent using other parts as your evidence.

Didn't look at Jeff Relf stuff.

Unfortunately for the time scale, there is no way for my
own views to be formally published.
Why not?
Because I am just a Joe out of the street. Not part of the
community. I have no control over the time it will take for
my ideas to filter up and even be discussed.

Well, have they been submitted to a journal?

To some. One hurdle: no consideration possible without backing by
already published and recongnized sponsor.

I hate red tape.

Second hurdle: there is no way this will be subjected to the whim of
insufficiently knowledgeable reviewers.

You can start by describing the experiments you feel would support
your ideas.

I have. Exhaustively.

Generally speaking, there are hordes of scientists who would bite your arms off for a head start in re-writing cosmology. The fame and kudos that would attach to such a person are phenomenal.

No doubt. All they need to do as I did: isolate the verified data and
reconsider.

Seriously, if you are confident about your ideas then you will find a scientist who will look into it.

Well, I have no doubt that this will happen some time in the future.
With 3000 copies of my book already flaoting about, this is unavoicable.

But as I said, I have no control over the timescale.

André Michaud
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
    ... Without being unduly rude, it is often the case that people see common sense when it is simply a matter of someone agreeing with them. ... it was always due to insufficient verified data ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Einstein Made It Up As He Went Along
    ... demonstrated hundreds of times that common sense is not accurate. ... That would be true since common sense is not connected to relativity, ... but is instead connected to a static universe. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Fallout 3 no longer banned in Australia
    ... the universe. ... Seems like common sense is being bred out ... For some reason, more and more people today cannot get it through their ... was the exclusive domain where humans sprang forth. ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg)
  • Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
    ... Jim Spaza wrote: ... the Big Bang be created? ... Surely by now you must realize that common sense is, in fact, a very poor ... way to understand certain fundemental aspects of the Universe. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
    ... the Big Bang be created? ... The problem with common sense is that it is not very common. ... then show me something that occurs anywhere in the universe ... let once-disassembled matter combine to form stars and planets but fast ...
    (talk.origins)