Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?


"srp" <srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:44889BB6.1030804@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.

No. It would be a sad day if we ever were.

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

Critically important.

Well, yes.

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

In the loosest sense of the word proof, a theory which makes predictions
about something untestable, but has follow on predictions about things
testable is sound.

Without this extension to the "proof requirements" we would still be in a
lot of quandries regarding the universe.

Also, the equivalence principle is something which has to be "assumed" as
being true. We can not, ever, test all the laws of physics in every single
part of an infinite universe.

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.

The idea of a t=0 event forming the start point of our universe, which then
through the mechanism of inflation became what we "see" today is sound
enough though.

It has made "testable" predictions which have been borne out with
experiment.

The downfall of the idea itself appears as you approach t=0. If you go to a
time before t=0 then as far as I know, there are no "scientific" theories
which can even begin to answer this.

It is almost certain that the models and theories *we* humans use to
describe the universe as incomplete and inaccurate. This is because they
are, simply put, models. Ascribing too much significance to the detail is,
potentially, a dead end. For example, there may well be a cosmological
ether, however none of our theories (which have an excellent track record
for matching the experimental data) require it and no experiment has
detected it. Therefore, with nods to Occam, it is not required for the
model.

That doesn't mean it doesn't "exist" though.


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.

One aspect that you find fault with.

We can use the combination of supernovae data and paralax to determine
distance to large scale stellar structures (and this is done on a regular
basis). Both measurements match. (In fact multiple measurements agree)

Using supernovae brightness and stella composition we can see that otherwise
identical large scale structures are redshifted. (Again, multiple
measurement sources in agreement)

Now, upon realising that large scale structures _are_ infact redshifted
means a few questions need to be asked but first, more data is required.

We can look at closer, easy to calibrate, structures. We see (again,
multiple sources) that stars in our local group exhibit both red and
blueshift. We also note that blueshift is _not_ apparent in the large scale
structures beyond our group.

Parallax measurements indicate that structures showing red shift are a
distance away which appears proportional with the amount of redshift shown.
From this, we conclude that a given redshift indicates a given distance and
that this also indicates the universe is expanding.

Now, I admit that in the summary above there are weak links so what has been
done about that.

First off, what if "other stars" have a different composition to our
reference stars (within the local group). This is possible (at the extreme
of the range of possible things though) but if it is the case then we need
to review pretty much all our current laws of physics. As these laws
function perfectly in all manner of situations on Earth we have no reason to
believe the same does not hold true elsewhere. While there is no _proof_
that stars a million light years away are identical to our Sun, it would
take proof for people to think otherwise.

Next weak point is the Doppler shift. We cant fly a billion light years away
and shine a torch at Earth to see what happens but we can look at the
physics involved and the equipment we have here. It is possible that the
redshift from large scale structures _could_ be the result of little green
men abducting the photons and experimenting on them. We don't know for sure.
What we can do is experiment.

We _know_ that light from the Sun to the Earth is Doppler shifted as the
Earth rotates around the Sun. We know we can create a Doppler shift in light
between two locations on Earth and that you can still see the Doppler effect
_after_ wavelengths have been absorbed by intervening materials.

What reason is there to think the red shift is anything other than down to
the 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.

Dont bother. He is invariably wrong.

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.

Ok. Publish them on a website and wait for a scientist in need of a PhD
subject to read them, agree with them, and take it up.

I hate red tape.

Same here. Wasnt much when I was in academia. (I was still pants though)

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

Well this is a problem.

In science, if you come up with a groundbreaking new idea you have two
choices.

1 - submit it for the review of people who dont understand it as well as you
do.
2 - keep it a secret and take it to your grave.

Until you publish, no one will know it. Publishing requires peer review
otherwise every nutcase would change science every ten minutes.

Despite peoples fears, the peer review process is not as "nasty" as some
think. Most people chosen to review a document look forward to learning new
things. Let them read it, if they learn and agree your document is sound.
If you cant convince them, then you need to rewrite it.

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

I have. Exhaustively.

Ok. Are they feasible? Can they be conducted easily?

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.

Ah, this is often not the case. Isolating data is sometimes the road to
madness. What person A may feel is sufficiently isolated may not match
person B's opinion.

Not to mention, in Cosmology most of the verified data relies on other
theories to support the verification process. We have never had ANY actual
contact with anything outside our solar system, so almost all verification
is by third party means.

Every day, in universities across the globe, there are young scientists who
are trying to re-write the books on cosmology and the big bang theory. The
reason none (so far) have succeeded is that the data supporting the idea is
actually quite robust.

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.

Excellent.

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

That is a secondary consideration.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Aether medium gravity
    ... Earth the aura of a nova they said occurred 1,000 years ago our time. ... We observe the aura 70,000 light years distant. ... Earth and the Sun to choose a preferred center of the Universe between the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Plate Tectonics and Earth expansion
    ... To me this subject of earth expansion is interesting because ... the entire universe is expanding. ... expansion is due to the increase in self repulsive matter or energy. ... A Quintessential Introduction to Dark Energy ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: i swear it is true>>>
    ... He to Whom the kingdom of the heavens and the earth belongs. ... nature and the universe were like machines that functioned on their ... Considering the conditions necessary for life, ... Earth to the level of gases in the atmosphere, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: i swear it is true>>>
    ... He to Whom the kingdom of the heavens and the earth belongs. ... nature and the universe were like machines that functioned on their ... Considering the conditions necessary for life, ... Earth to the level of gases in the atmosphere, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: i swear it is true>>>
    ... He to Whom the kingdom of the heavens and the earth belongs. ... nature and the universe were like machines that functioned on their ... Considering the conditions necessary for life, ... Earth to the level of gases in the atmosphere, ...
    (talk.origins)