Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?

"srp" <srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4489AA1D.6090302@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
T Wake a écrit :

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.

In my book, any untestable conclusion is meaningless to start with.

In itself though, that is an untestable conclusion. A goodly proportion of
ideas and theories come, at some stage, to a point where an assumption has
to be made.

In order that human knowledge advances we have to make some assumptions. For
example, your criteria remove any ability for science to be conduced beyond
the solar system and make anything further away than the orbit of the moon
difficult.

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

Well, I disagree. If more focus had been put on _verifying_ what is
verifiable, I have a view that we would have more verified data at
our disposal.

Most of the current ideas in cosmology are verified, although I get the
feeling you dont agree with the verification process.

For example, the age of the universe has been determined by several
methods - each independant of each other and each others underlying
physics - and they agree (within error bars of course) to the same
approximate age.

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.

The only real assumption that need be made in my view is that the laws
of physics are the same all through the real physical universe.

It is still an untestable assumption. If you make one, why not others?

When you say "real physical universe," what else is there?

This
is the assumption I made and it means that all fundamental physical
laws can be tested locally.

Yes. This is what happens today. We assume that the laws of physics are the
same 3x10^100 lightyears away as they are here.

This does not imply that they are the same under different temperatures /
pressures though.


The downfall of the idea itself appears as you approach t=0.

But it does appear at some point.

Yes. All theories have areas in which they cease to be valid.

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.

For now, with the currently integrated verified data, yes.

Tomorrow is another day.

Yes. However, there is no reason to assume humanity will *ever* be able to
describe cosmological process in an exact manner. We are a part of the
whole, tied into three dimensions of movement with time heading in a
specific direction.

I am not doubting that with each passing day our models will become more
accurate and make better predictions, but this does not have the inbuilt
implication that they describe the cosmos in better detail. They still talk
about *our* interaction with the universe.

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.

And therefore, it is not there.

Well. I for one see no reason to believe in an "Aether" (However cranks
here choose to call it), however I am also aware of the fact that because
something isn't required for a model doesn't mean it is not actually there.

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

In my book, it does mean exactly that.

Either something exists and it can be verified to exist or else it
simply doesn't exist. No Goedel middle ground in physical reality.

Ok. But that is a philosophical conclusion to draw.

If a new, better, theory of Quantum Gravity (for example) was introduced and
verified, and found to have an Aether, would you ascribe it suddenly
begining to exist? Or would it have always existed, yet not been needed for
our models?

A model is a model. It is not reality. It may be an excellent description of
reality, but they are different.

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.

I don't think there is any need to. My view is that an electron here
is identical to an electron 1 gazillion light years from here. Same
for a proton, same for a hydrogen atom and all other more complex
atoms.

Ok, we agree on that then.

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.

Absolutely. In fact, it would make no sense if it was otherwise. All
spectral data from afar would be meaningless.

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.

Then, consider only people who use common sense. That's what I do.

Common sense is often a bad choice when it comes to looking for guidance in
physics.

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.

Yes.

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.

Yes.

What reason is there to think the red shift is anything other than down
to the Doppler effect?

The Hubble red shift could also be a mix of real Doppler shift depending
on the _real_ relative velocities of each galaxy with respect to us plus
some other effect.

Yet, as we know what would cause the effect - and our models show this will
make predictions which match the observed data - it seems that some serious
proof would be required to include extra forces which are causing the
redshift.

In the absence of any reason to think it is something other than Doppler
shift, why look for other reasons?

For example real loss of energy of incoming photons
due to some other cause. This has already been considered, but always
rejected out of hand because the Doppler idea no doubt was more
appealing, particularly since it seemed in sync with GR and more simple
to mathematically address.

Well, earlier you discuss the requirements for testable proofs and
experimental validity.

We can test, proove and validate the Doppler effect on photons here on
Earth. It seems you are suggesting we search for some "unexplained
phenomonon," which we can not create here on Earth, because you dont like
the implications of the Doppler shift.

As with the Aether, the model (verified from paralax, spectral analysis etc)
implies there is no need to find another reason. They may be one, but the
model doesnt require it.

By your own assertion, this means there is no other reason.


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.

Not likely. Waste of time.

Why? What is the rush?

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.

No way.

2 - keep it a secret and take it to your grave.

No way either.

The stuff is safely out of the box and safely impossible to repress by
anybody. It simply is not yet within reach of the physics community.

Well, generally speaking, very little in science actually gets "repressed."
If something new and groundbreaking is found then it gets publically
debated - despite the best wishes of those who disagree. If a theory is
sound, it will survive anything its detractors throw at it. (For example the
H. florensis debate)

If it is not sound, no one will be interested.

Until you publish, no one will know it.

It is in print. And already fairly widely, however thinly, distributed
in institutions all over the big ball.

That is enough. It will be peer reviewed though, in that your peers (people
who are also interested in / studying cosmology) will read it and pass
judgement on it. If they like it and agree with what it says, then it will
grow.

Publishing requires peer review otherwise every nutcase would change
science every ten minutes.

Well, no peer has nor will review this particular nut case before it
eventually climbs the metaphorical leg of the physics community on
its own.

Ok. It is being peer reviewed though, just in a different manner than
required for formal publication.

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.

I know the drill. The answer is no. Not this time around.

As I said, it will be reviewed. When it gets used as a citation you know you
have suceeded in getting it accepted.

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?

Yes very easy to conduct. The problem is, no one will any time soon,
since it based on a model that won't be considered any time soon.

Well, you would be surprised what people are willing to do as experiments.

Surely the experiment required to validate the model does not require
acceptance of the model prior to the experiment though?

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.

Who said that B had to agree. You define your own validity criteria.

Well, this is the problem with trying to "isolate" data from other peoples
works. Some one may come up with an almost random conclusion.

Mine is, if something can be scattered against, it is physically
there and you can study it, otherwise, it is not there (it does not
exist, so no need to waste time considering whether or not it may
exist while not being verifiable.).

Well, I dont have any problem with this, I think. It depends on your use of
terminology being the same as mine. Can you scatter against gravity? Can you
scatter against the weak force?

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.

This is not what I call verification. I call verification, verification
of physical (scatterable) existence. I found that this can occur only
at the particle level.

Interesting, yet you miss the fact we verify the particle interactions and
scale that up to produce the cosmological data used day in and day out.

How do you verify gravity exists? On the particle level it is very different
to what happens on the big scales.

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.

My view is that it is because they have been relying on _supposedly_
verified data and on unverified and often unverifiable assumptions.

Often they haven't. There are a lot - especially undergraduates - who try to
recreate from first principles as it were.

The data supporting the theories remains robust though. What is there you
dont agree with?

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.

Yes. The real important consideration in my view is that the community
has no control over its spreading either.

Yet the science community has total control. Without getting scientists "on
side" a theory is dead in the water. Scientists can be recruited to a theory
based on successful (reproducible) experimental data, or a very sound
mathematical model.

If they are not recruited, then how does the theory grow and gain
acceptance?

Despite what is often alluded to on USENET, there is not a conspiracy to
keep scientific advances hidden (no, the stone cutters don't exist :-)) -
when a new, good, theory appears it spreads. This is despite the best
efforts of its opponents (Evolution for example).


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
    ... Most of the current ideas in cosmology are verified, although I get the feeling you dont agree with the verification process. ... We can not, ever, test all the laws of physics in every single part of an infinite universe. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Einstein, Twins and Moving Clocks
    ... >> of physics. ... >> Every prediction has been empirically ... accounted for except for Mercury. ... on whether it is capable of empirical verification. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 695 August 5, 2004 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein
    ... The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News ... the density times the velocity of sound in that material. ... diamond has a low density but a very high speed of sound; ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
    ... We can not, ever, test all the laws of physics in every single part of an infinite universe. ... 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 have never had ANY actual contact with anything outside our solar system, so almost all verification is by third party means. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 828 June 13, 2007 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein
    ... The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News ... TURNING HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY THROUGH SOUND has been demonstrated by ...
    (sci.physics)