[Shubee]

Suppose we take the view that quantum physics is science. If we adjoin to quantum physics all of the untestable, far-reaching mathematical implications of quantum physics, would we still have a scientific theory?

Shubee

This post has been edited by swansont: 26 September 2008 - 08:14 PM
Reason for edit: turned volume down

[iNow]

Huh? Quantum Physics IS science. :confused:

[swansont]

What untestable implications do you have in mind?

[Shubee]

swansont said:

What untestable implications do you have in mind?

Does it matter? Suppose it can be argued logically that quantum mechanics necessarily implies a strange and untestable mathematical result. Should that unusual, far-reaching, untestable result be classified as a scientific theory?

[ydoaPs]

Shubee said:

Does it matter? Suppose it can be argued logically that quantum mechanics necessarily implies a strange and untestable mathematical result. Should that unusual, far-reaching, untestable result be classified as a scientific theory?

If it is untestable, then it is unfalsifiable, and thus not science by definition. Are there "strange and untestable mathematical" results necessarily implied by quantum mechanics? If so, what?

[Klaynos]

Shubee said:

Does it matter? Suppose it can be argued logically that quantum mechanics necessarily implies a strange and untestable mathematical result. Should that unusual, far-reaching, untestable result be classified as a scientific theory?

What untestable result of QM?

QM is one of the most tested theories in the history of science...

Many modern devices rely on it....

[iNow]

He's been arguing in favor of creationism on another forum using the "everything is possible" and hence everything "suddenly life popped into existence" (il)logic.

[Shubee]

yourdadonapogos said:

If it is untestable, then it is unfalsifiable

Can you prove that? Please state a precise mathematical definition of unfalsifiable.

[nitric]

Quote

Huh? Quantum Physics IS science.
______________
iNow

any hypothesis that can be tested is science

[ydoaPs]

Shubee said:

Can you prove that? Please state a precise mathematical definition of unfalsifiable.

In order for something to be falsified, it must be able to be tested. It's a true statement by definition and as such does not necessitate proof. Now, if you would be so kind, please answer my questions.

[Shubee]

yourdadonapogos said:

In order for something to be falsified, it must be able to be tested.

There are interesting untestable mathematical implications of the equations of general relativity. For example, it is believed that matter that falls into a black hole will arrive at a spacetime singularity. It's impossible to test that, so is the belief in a singularity at the center of every black hole an example of physicists believing in a non-scientific theory?

[Klaynos]

Shubee said:

There are interesting untestable mathematical implications of the equations of general relativity. For example, it is believed that matter that falls into a black hole will arrive at a spacetime singularity. It's impossible to test that, so is the belief in a singularity at the center of every black hole an example of physicists believing in a non-scientific theory?

Singularities imply a breakdown of a theory, they're infinities, which are not liked by physicists, it implies that GR is a incomplete theory.

[swansont]

Klaynos said:

Singularities imply a breakdown of a theory, they're infinities, which are not liked by physicists, it implies that GR is a incomplete theory.

And, to clarify this, it means the theory doesn't hold at r=0. No need to test a theory where one doesn't claim it to be valid.

I'll ask again, do you have any untestable implications of quantum physics in mind?

[traveler]

Two words,

Big Bang

Need I say more? :rolleyes:

[Shubee]

traveler said:

Two words,

Big Bang

Need I say more? :rolleyes:

Thank you traveler; that's certainly a great, untestable, implied quantum physics theory.

[npts2020]

Why is the "big bang" untestable? One does not need to recreate the earth to test the forces that act in its development. In fact I thought that was what the Large Hadron Collider was all about. The test for the "big bang" is to look to see if the universe is behaving today in the manner the theory predicts it should.

[Klaynos]

The big bang is testable.

The singularity that drops out of it is NOT testable, this is one of those breakdowns we were talking about were the theory does not hold and we know that.

BBT is NOT a consequence of quantum mechanics though.

So please answer Swansont's question.

[Royston]

traveler said:

Need I say more? :rolleyes:

Well yes, considering this thread is questioning the validity of QM, at least I think that's what the OP is suggesting, and that the big bang is a consequence of astronomy and cosmology, then you need to explain why you brought this up.

The only point QM comes into play is when we're dealing with singularities in this instance, but this area of physics is way beyond my scope. However, this certainly doesn't retract from the observations and predictions that the universe was once much denser.

I personally don't follow the first post, it stinks of a lack of understanding of QM.

[Shubee]

Klaynos said:

The big bang is testable.

Please define testable.

Here is a lecture by Stephen Hawking where the professor says, "The universe can spontaneously create itself out of nothing."

How can we test that popular pseudo-scientific belief without creating nothingness?

[swansont]

Shubee said:

Please define testable.

Here is a lecture by Stephen Hawking where the professor says, "The universe can spontaneously create itself out of nothing."

How can we test that popular pseudo-scientific belief without creating nothingness?

Testable means one can devise experiments that can be confirmed, or not. The theory must make predictions for this to be the case. The background radiation is an example of one of those predictions that was confirmed.

I think Hawking was referring to the Hawking-Turok Instanton Theory. I'm not a cosmologist; I don't know what predictions it makes and how they could be confirmed. "Popular pseudo-scientific belief," however, would not be an accurate description.

You started this thread asking about quantum theory. I'll ask one last time, do you have any untestable implications of quantum physics in mind? (Related to this, please review the forum rules, especially rule 2.5)