Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?

T Wake a écrit :
"srp" <srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:4489E0C9.8040206@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
T Wake a écrit :
"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.
I test it very easily. If something is there, I can scatter something else that also exists against it. If it is not there or does not exist,
then I can't.

Very simple.

But it still rests on a complete assumption. You have no way of testing the validity of that assumption. This makes two untestable assumptions your theory relies upon:

1 - any untestable conclusion is meaningless
2 - If you can not scatter something against "X" then "X" does not exist.

These are assumptions though.

Also, to some extent, 1 falsifies 2.

This is your interpretation. Pretty negative.

My view is. If something can be scattered against something, then
that something physically exists. The rest is thin air to me.

The physical existence of something that can be scattered against is
not an assumption to me.

A goodly proportion of ideas and theories come, at some stage, to a point where an assumption has to be made.
No assumption other than universal extent need be made if the foundation
of a theory is only verifiable existence through scattering.

The validity of scattering as the only means of a proof of existence has to be proven though - otherwise this is an assumption.

Maybe to you and possibly to the rest of the community. But not to me.

Despite what people want, science has _lots_ of assumptions. You are trying to eliminate all of them and still have two.

Not my view. I have only one criterium, and it is proof enough of
physical existence to me.

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.
I don't think so. Since from the start the fundamental assumption would
be that the laws of nature are universal.

Ok, but we are still basing this on an assumption.

Not so from my viewpoint. See above.

Most of the current ideas in cosmology are verified, although I get the feeling you dont agree with the verification process.
You got it. We don't attach the same meaning to verification, obviously.

Possibly. What is it in cosmology you feel isnt verified?

That the Hubble red shift is strictly a Doppler effect. The very
foundation of BB theory and the backbone of GR.

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.
All dependant on the GR-DopplerBasedRedShift concept.

The Doppler shift is not so much based on GR as the product of several theories (including the fundamentals of EM) and experiements conducted on Earth and within the solar system.

No disputing that. Hubble red shift still not proven to be strictly
Doppler based.


Self consistancy is not verification of physical reality in my view.

Well, it is a start. There is no point verifing theories which are not self consistent.

Of course.

Nothing about the Doppler-esque Red Shift of light from large scale structures is contradicted by Earth based experiments. In fact, it is supported by the fact we can replicate it on Earth.

What other verification would you require?

That light photon trajectories deflected by galactic masses on their
way here do not use up some energy changing direction.

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 coherence of spectral data set is not confirmation, then what is ?

Well, this is the same data which implies a cosmological red shift and you aren't happy with that.

Not so. The same data that _appears_ to imply a cosmological red shift.

Do you have different standards of verification for ideas you agree with and ones you dont agree with?

No. The same. There is only one objective reality, as far as I know.

If you make one, why not others?
I don't think that others are required.

Ok, but that is an arbritrary choice.

Not in my view. It is a very restrictive but necessary choice.

When you say "real physical universe," what else is there?
Theories and models that are often taken as being the real physical
universe.

Which is a mistake.

When I talk about the real physical universe, I am not referring
to theories or models, but to the physically existing universe
itself that all our models and theories have been attempts at
describing.

Ok. I rarely think of a model and the "real" universe being the same. A model is a model. The model spitfires I had as a child did a very good attempt at showing me (aged 8) what a spitfire looked like and what important bits made it up, but they didn't cover the entire spitfire in flight and with a pilot.

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.
Temperatures and pressures can only be the result of the fundamental
law of nature being what they are, whatever they are. They are a
secondary effect. They can't determine the laws they depend on.

However the laws of physics do not depend on our undertanding and interpretation to be as they are.

Agreement.

We know that as temperature and pressure increase the effects of certain laws change.

Certainly not the laws that cause them.

Gravity can be overcome by a tiny magnet,

I don't think so. When you see a tiny magnet escape the Earth on its
own, give me a call.

yet holds people to the planets surface.

I am not saying the temp and pressure dictate the law, but that our laws are based on what we have been able to experimentally create at this time.

Our laws are somehow meaningless to me. What I care about are the
fundamental physical laws.

Becoming obsessed with the current model as the only description of the universe takes us down a dead end.

I couldn't have said it better.

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.
The real physical universe doesn't. That's what we need to describe.

Probably not possible, certainly not in my lifetime.

I disagree. I think it is perfectly possible.

We are part of the universe, we have no way to step "outside" and look in to generate the data required. Even a theory of everything would be simply a model of the universe, not the perfect description of it.

There is no need for a perfect description, only a clear understanding
of the fundamental laws.

Models just show us what need to know for that application.

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.
I not only assume it. I am positive that we will do it.

Good for you. Personally, I hope not as it will pretty much spell the end of "science."

You are quite pessimistic. I think that on the contrary, it will open up
whole new fields of quite fascinating research.

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.
As far as I know, we are made of the same fundamental particles as the
rest of the universe and that all obey the same very simple fundamental
laws.

Simple isnt the word I would use :-)

Well, I do.

It took me years to get my head around them.

If you are talking about the theories, certainly. but the underlying
laws are simple anyway.

I see no reason why we could not eventually clearly understand the
whole sheebang.

Because we are part of it.

I don't see this as a hurdle.

We can describe three dimensional objects very easily. It is hard enough for us to explain two or four dimensional concepts, let alone accurately describe how all particles, forces and dimensions interact over all scales, temperatures, pressures etc.

I don't think it is that hard. It only depends on the view point it
seems to me.

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.
No. What determines that it isn't there is that it is impossible to
detect it.

Until the ability to detect improves I assume? Then was it always there or did it appear?

With our technology, if we have not yet detected it locally. it simply
isn't there, from my viewpoint.

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?
No. I have verified to my satisfaction that there is no Aether.

Aha. So the requirement is to _your_ satisfaction.

Yes. To my satisfaction. I need satisfy no one else.

You have conclusively proven

to my satisfaction

that no matter what theories are generated in the future and what experiment and equipment becomes available to humanity the Aether will _never_ be detected?

Yes.

While I agree that there probably is no Aether, that is a bold statement to make.

Well, then, trust your own judgment. Strike it off if you are
convinced that it can't exist. That's what I did.

This, by the way, is one of the reasons we will never have a perfect description of the Universe. The Universe doesnt care what _we_ humans can or cant detect.

No, but I care.

Or would it have always existed, yet not been needed for our models?
Same answer. File closed as far as I am concerned. Not detectable.
Not required. Not there. Non existant.

Not currently detectable is not the same as never detectable.

Again, What we have not yet detected at the infinitesimal level with
the quite adequate existing technology, simply is not there.

That's my opinion.

A model is a model. It is not reality. It may be an excellent description of reality, but they are different.
Exactly my point. What I think is required is describing the only
physical reality that exists.

Semantics. That is still a model and it is still limited by what it is possible and what it isnt possible for us to detect and determine.

Not my view.

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.
Good. Then we both agree that fundamental physical laws are universal.

Yes. It is also the basic assumption of GR.

Not if the so-called fundamental physical laws that GR rely on break
down close to t=0. They can't be universal if they break down at any
level.

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.
I don't think so. I think people should trust their common sense more.

I disagree. I have yet to meet anyone whose common sense was born out repeatedly regarding physics.

I see nothing in physical reality that makes no sense to me.

In fact, throughout my life, I find that reliance on "common sense" is the cause of more error and problem than anything else.

Well, some learn from errors and refine the process. Available to
all, it seems to me.

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
Do we now! We sure think we do, from what you say.

Yes. Recession of large scale structures.

Based on the unproven assumed Doppler single cause of Hubble red shift.

- 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.
What extra forces do you think would be required ? I see no need for
any extra forces.

Well, you wrote:

"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. For example real loss of energy of incoming photons
due to some other cause."

My use of the word "forces" wasn't in the context of the fundamental forces. However, you call on some unknown aspect of the electromagnetic force when you ask for the photons to lose energy on route.

Not at all. Not some unknown aspect, simply some misunderstood aspect.

This has been tested for and does not match the observed phenomena.

The required test has never been carried out, or else I would know
about it.

Despite your demand for clear, proven, theories you have become somewhat vague and "fluffy" here.

Have I?

We have a theory which matches what we can experiment for on Earth.
The theory makes testable predictions about the data we should be getting
The data matches the theory which matches the Earth experiments.

Yet, you dont think this is sufficent and think "some other cause" should be considered.

Yes. Definitely. The Pioneer axial spin so-called anomaly directly hints
at the problem. My model directly predicted such spin slow down for
precisely that cause.

In the absence of any reason to think it is something other than Doppler shift, why look for other reasons?
You see ! That's precisely the reason why I will let no one in the
community have a say in whether or not my model will make it into
the collective consciousness as fast as it possibly can.

Ok. If the community has no say, it wont get into the collective conciousness.

Oh yes it will. If not in your generation, then the next, or the next.

How long has your model been in the wild now?

7 years.

I set the agenda on this one. No delays allowed. And already too
late for any attempts at recuperation.

Ok. Your agenda will not get valid work accepted faster than any other.

In my view, it does ensure optimal velocity, given the circumstances.

If anything, your agenda creates the image of something which is not able to stand up to rigourous scrutiny.

The future will tell. Its being loose out there is not a matter of
opinion. It is an objective reality fact.

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.
Yes.

We can test, proove and validate the Doppler effect on photons here on Earth.
Yes.

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.
Oh, I do like the implications of the Doppler shift. They are perfectly
kosher. What is in question is the so-called Hubble red shift
strictly-doppler interpretation.

I am not sure what you are refering to here. I am not sure what you mean with the term "so-called Hubble red shift strictly-doppler interpretation."

Are you talking about H_0? Lambda? Cosmological expansion? Recession?

I am talking about the main subject of this thread. The notion that
the BB concept is grounded in the belief that the Hubble red shift
is strictly due to Doppler shift.

And I am not suggesting we search for some unexplained phenomenon that
we cannot create here on Earth. I suggested verifying a perfectly and
very easily explainable phenomenon that can be clarified only by
a very simple experiment being carried out in deep space.

Very simple 2nd thermodynamics law application.

What is the experiment then?

To send a heavy wheel deep in space, far from any large body, set it
in rotation and observe if whether or not it will gradually slow down.

It seems to me that theory says that it will rotate forever. My model
says it will gradually slow down and in time, completely stop rotating.

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.
Then the model is flawed.

All models are flawed in one respect or another.

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

You stated that if the model didnt require something (Aether in the example) then it didnt exist.

No, I said that since it can't be detected, then I conclude that it does not exist.

The model for cosmological expansion does not require any other activity to reduce the energy of the photons, therefore your criteria demands that no other activity exists.

Then the model for cosmological expansion is wrong, from my view point.

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?
There is no rush. It simply is useless and only serves as focal point
for futile controversy. Website publication is simply not the way that
real knowledge is spread.

Ok. Largely I agree.

Well, generally speaking, very little in science actually gets "repressed."
Exactly. Nothing can. Formal publication is not required.

But, if the theory is sound, it will receive formal publication eventually.

Not any time soon was my conclusion. I feel this too important to be
left to the whim of reviewers.

What formal publication allows is the formal community discussing
the issue. Not required either for spreading the ideas.

True. Ideas can spread in many forms. For an idea to gain scientific acceptance, though, it is slightly different.

Not my problem any more. I did what I had to do. The rest is not
my baby.

If people can not cite the "idea" then it will be phased out of the conciousness eventually.

I don't think so.

At best, some one else will hear it, reinvent it and claim it as their own.

Whatever. It will not die out. It is by now simply impossible. Too many
copies around.

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.
Exactly. The future will tell.

Yes.

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.
Absolutely. I simply have no control over the timeframe, nor do I care
much. I did what I had to do. The rest is not my baby.

Ok.

If and when it gets used as a citation, the orthodox community will have
been defeated in maintaining the status quo. And real research will
then resume. If I am still around, I will deeply enjoy.

I have never seen the "orthodox community" in science. When I was still interested and able to go to conferences there was constant debate and very little which could be described as orthodox.

And zero progress. That's orthodoxy in full regalia.

I know of no one active in the physical sciences who is trying to maintain the status quo. (Drug reps are a different matter...) Scientific research is about finding out new things. All the students studying for their PhDs for instance need to add to the sum total of human knowledge. This is not done by re-inforcing the status quo.

That's exactly what I have been seeing happening for the past decades.

Surely the experiment required to validate the model does not require acceptance of the model prior to the experiment though?
I should think not. But I am positive that the community would require
such prior acceptance. Grants are not allowed that easily.

Students looking for PhD topics get them for all manner of things. What does your experiment require?

That some day, open minded physicists pay attention, and proceed.

Well, this is the problem with trying to "isolate" data from other peoples works. Some one may come up with an almost random conclusion.
Not if the criteria are clear and simple.

For example, if you take "scatterability" as an absolute condition
for granting the status of "physically existing" to a particle,
what random conclusion could there be other than "physically
existing" or "not physically existing" for any given particle?

At some point in any sufficient number of attempts, you know
whether or not a given particle can be scatterered against.

Ok, I think I can follow this example.

Fine. Then you have it all. That all there is to it.

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?
No, but I can scatter against the particles that are interacting. The
interaction can then be studied and ascertained. It has been long ago.

Yet this does not prove the existence of gravity. There are no known particles of gravity - some are theorised but none have been found.

Your absolute requirement for scatterability means gravity no longer exists.

Absolutely not.

Or is this another loop hole in the requirement for scatterability?

Not at all. Once you know the particles exist you can then study
the way they interact. On record for very long.

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.
I don't think the "scaling" has been done correctly. No re-scaling has
been done, for example, since we have found out the internal structure
of nucleons. The Pioneer so-called "anomalous" acceleration is directly
tied to that faulty scaling, in my view.

Ok, this isnt quite true though. The internal structure of nucleons has been determined for quite some time (and predicted for longer).

Not that long ago. Quarks up and down were detected only in the second half of the 1960's.

What about the internal structures changes the way things scale up?

SR was developped 100 years ago, defining rest mass based on the notion
that nucleon rest mass was invariant. Never was adapted to take into
account that nucleon inertia would vary with proximity of large quantities of matter due to coulomb interaction.

How does this answer the "pioneer anomaly" better than any other reason?

Simply because the effective mass of the Pioneer crafts can only be
slightly larger in deep space than measurable at Earth's surface.

How do you verify gravity exists? On the particle level it is very different to what happens on the big scales.
This is the general view. My model reveals a different picture.
Discussed in some other thread lately, mainly with Freddifizzx and
also Ken.

Ok. Do you model it as the same as on the large scale then?

In my model, there is only one scale. That of the only physically
existing scatterable particles.

The data supporting the theories remains robust though. What is there you dont agree with?
I have no specific point of disagreement. I simply refocused everything
on a scatterable only particles basis. I observe the new picture. I
do not systematically try to find specific faults in the existing
models.

What in the picture changes?

Quite a bit. I have discussed just about every aspect of it right here
over the course of the past 8 years, if you are curious.

If you have a specific question on some point and if it makes sense to
me, I will give you my opinion.

Why thank you. I would hate to take up your time unnecessarily.

What does refocussing on scatterable particles change about the accepted theories of cosmological expansion?

It just causes it to make no sense.

I have no idea how to make it any more specific at this time.

Me neither.

Yet the science community has total control.
You are mistaken. Not on this particular issue.

Ok. If the community choose not to read your material how will it spread?

Not my problem. I simply described it and made it available.

You refer to the "scientific community" as a single organism, so I am using the same descriptor when I say you need them (it) to read it and get on board with your ideas.

Not at all. I don't care really if current community at large takes heed
or not. It simply is not possible that at least a few will not become
interested and dig in some day, most probably some students whose idea
is not yet made up, and who will think this makes quite a bit of sense.

If not, then it goes no where.

The future will tell. Not my problem any more.

Without getting scientists "on side" a theory is dead in the water.
Again, you are mistaken.

Ok - having laymen read and agree with a theory is not the way to get it accepted and enduce the paradigm shift you look for.

As I said. I did what I thought best. The rest is not my concern.

Scientists can be recruited to a theory based on successful (reproducible) experimental data, or a very sound mathematical model.
Sure.

If they are not recruited, then how does the theory grow and gain acceptance?
The only requirement is that the new ideas be spread and enter the
collective consciousness. Time will do the rest.

Yet you say this theory can spread and enter the collective conciousness without being read and passed on by the scientific community. How is that?

That's not what I said. I said that it will enter the collective
conciousness whether the community wants it or not. That's my view.

I did what I figured needed to be done for it to happen.

Once an idea has been had, there is no way it can be un-had.

Despite what is often alluded to on USENET, there is not a conspiracy to keep scientific advances hidden
I don't think there is.

(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).
That's right. But as I said, I set the agenda on this one.

Really? All you have done is released a publication.

Not "released", spread, which is quite different.

That is not setting the agenda in the slightest.

The future will tell.

André Michaud
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
    ... The physical existence of something that can be scattered against is ... That the Hubble red shift is strictly a Doppler effect. ... Certainly not the laws that cause them. ... Very different from implying common sense is the basis of sound theories. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Some Sanity In California
    ... I don't find the term "libertarian" evil at all. ... it was intentionally left in to make the smoker sound illiterate>> ... Funny how this is a quote given to the reporter, ... laws, not make them. ...
    (alt.smokers.pipes)
  • Re: Music Industry Halting Mass Suits
    ... copyright laws always recognized that there was a limited term. ... the impact of keeping all of this vast body of recorded sound ... There are 3 million sound recordings in the building I'm sitting in. ... pictures, 19th century sheet music publications, the papers of George ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)
  • Re: Music Industry Halting Mass Suits
    ... gone beyond that and the complicated case of sound recordings (which ... copyright laws always recognized that there was a limited term. ... making it Public Domain, whether they or the holder want to or not. ... There are 3 million sound recordings in the building I'm sitting in. ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)