Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?


Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Read your post Mr. Hansen,
At one time "science" was regarded as something
based on repeatable observations. But recently
science now includes social science, statistics,
tea leaves, bumps on head and anything else
that is politically correct.
Cosmological origin - assuming there was one -
cannot be repeated,

That does not preclude scientific investigation. Like archaeology or
paleontology, we still make models of the process and look for evidence
to test those models.

the evidence is the universe
always existed, as no contradiction of conservation
of mass-energy has been found.

You're making some pretty drastic assumptions there. For one, you're
assuminng that conservation of energy, or the symmetry of the
Lagrangian over time, as you know it, applies before an event that, as
the lore goes, created time itself. And to the extent that it's
sensible to talk about a time before the Big Bang, you're assuming that
the energy didn't exist before then.

Do you require the paleontologist to explain abiogenesis before he can
say something about the evolution of horses? We might not have physics
to cover the 1e-34 seconds after the Big Bang, but quite a lot has
happened since then, and we can say something about it. E.g. Big Bang
nucleosynthesis, which I've cited, is not even sensitive to conditions
that early, but relates to the cooling of the universe between the time
that free nucleons can exist and the time that atomic nuclei can exist.
We have models of the process that predict ratios of isotopes, models
based on a theory with independent validation, and we have observations
that match predictions. Which part of that fails the test of science?

BB as a scientific
theory is DOA, but it may have value as a working
conjecture, which is fine with me.
Ken S. Tucker

glhansen@xxxxxxx wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
Greg Hansen wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
PD wrote:

but that's irrelevant to whether others feel comfortable
with the evidence for it.


That's religious, there is NO evidence for a BB.
Ken


I'm surprised that you've missed this stuff. Big Bang theories are
based on general relativity. You know, that "greatest blunder" can't
get a static universe stuff? Intuitively, it seems pretty obvious that
if stuff is moving away from us, then it was a lot closer in the past
(cite redshifting versus distance as evidence). Structure of the
background radiation, every once in a while rags like Physics Today
publish new comparisons of measurement with theory. Gravitational
lensing apparantly caused by clumps of the dark matter that some wrote
off as fiction. Theories of Big Bang nucleosynthesis correctly predict
ratios of primordial isotopes.

There's actually quite a bit more than zero evidence there.

Let's be careful, there is no evidence that the
so-called "Red Shift" is of Doppler origin, that's
an assumption. And the idea that CMBR are
radiation remanents of the BB is really pushing
strange assumptions, again without evidence.

And there's no evidence that time dilation of satellites in orbit is a
geometric effect, although it is consistent with geometric theories of
gravity. There's a lot of things we can say that the redshifting is
not, such as an attenuation of bluer wavelengths. Line spectra are
shifted toward the red in the manner expected of the Doppler effect.
That's evidence, Ken. It validates the theory. And the
other-mentioned are also consistent with the theory, and inconsistent
with a lot of alternatives.


IMO BB is a conjecture requiring the suspension
of the laws of physics at some point (as PD said)
without any valid replacement, A.K.A. a MIRACLE,

Who cares? Excluding that point is a mature theory and a rich body of
evidence. Surely you don't want to say, for instance, "We don't have
physics to describe the attosecond after the Big Bang, therefore the
ratios of primordial isotopes tell us nothing about the expansion of
the universe." Between the point that baryons froze out and the point
that neutrons bound into nuclei is well described by the theory. It
looks like the universe was a lot smaller than it is now, and claiming
poor understanding of the physics at the beginning doesn't make the
evidence point to bigger or static.

therefore we have no theory for the MIRACLE and
so BB is NOT a theory, though an interesting
conjecture, and has the same weight as theism,
aka religious.
Ken

Yeah, and people say the same thing about quantum mechanics and special
relativity. E.g. Spaceman shouting for the undiscovered forces and
influences that make it appear that time goes slower for a moving
particle, when we should know it really doesn't. Anybody can wave his
arms around and propose an alternate explanation of varying quality for
the evidence, but an alternate explanation doesn't de-validate a
theory.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Chance or Design
    ... Because we have evidence for the existence of one, ... believe in a closed universe until he didn't. ... It is in general not acceptable, in science, to claim truth for any ... Take some physics classes and find out. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... It is the definition of science as it ... ID offers no testable hypothesis and no supporting evidence. ... If it can be shown that evolution *cannot* ... Not to the IDers, perhaps, but they do matter to scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... in science and rarely in religion. ... evidence may always change the explanation. ... No it could be included in science class. ... No, Calvin ball is an endeavour without rules, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Big Bang & Atheism
    ... Science is a general term indicating learned ... attempt to explain evidence produced by scientific workers. ... There is NO evidence at all for Evolution and scientists ... Known physics cannot describe ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Bush Remarks On Intelligent Design Theory Fuel Debate
    ... > "I am certainly well aware of the advances of science. ... The question is - in the absence of evidence to the contrary, ... > design and creationism, ...
    (soc.retirement)