[foodchain]

Shubee said:

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

The aspect of QM you are talking about I think actually falls into the interpretations category in which if you want science has already I think as a community if not really for individuals directly involved in such have as I already have pointed out keep such with the label interpretation. See QM has I don’t know about a half dozen or more alive interpretations all with differing aspects which are little more they hypothetical builds really onto the existing theory. QM itself though in regards to mathematical apparatus has been and continues to be tested by very precise means and methods empirically which produces nothing but results that agree with it. Most everything in physics is based ultimately on math, so I don’t know how you can say this particular physics theory based on math is any better then another theory that is tested highly which is also based on math, I also do not think anyone who has influence on the issue such as people working at the LHC state that our current physics is the end all of required understanding…

[Shubee]

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?

swansont said:

Testable means one can devise experiments that can be confirmed, or not. The theory must make predictions for this to be the case.

So if a theory T is a related set of multiple physical propositions {P1, P2, P3, ... PN}, then T is testable and is therefore a scientific theory if there is just one part of the theory Pj that is testable? So you're saying that we really don't need to be able to create a state of universal nothingness to see if a universe can spontaneously pop itself into existence? You're saying that the entire big bang theory T is a scientific theory by virtue of just some of the Pj being confirmed empirically?

swansont said:

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?

Let's being with your definition of science. It follows then that quantum mechanics, together with all its untestable, far-reaching mathematical implications, is a scientific theory.

Recall that the underpinnings of statistical thermodynamics is based on the collective motion of microscopic particles, which is governed by quantum mechanics:

Quote

In physics, thermodynamics (from the Greek θερμη, therme, meaning "heat" and δυναμις, dynamis, meaning "power") is the study of the transformation of energy into different forms and its relation to macroscopic variables such as temperature, pressure, and volume. Its underpinnings, based upon statistical predictions of the collective motion of particles from their microscopic behavior, is the field of statistical thermodynamics, a branch of statistical mechanics. -- Thermodynamics.

Quantum physics then is the fundamental physical law upon which all the laws of physical interactions and chemistry may be derived:

Quote

Essentially, statistical thermodynamics is an approach to thermodynamics situated upon statistical mechanics, which focuses on the derivation of macroscopic results from first principles. ... The statistical approach is to derive all macroscopic properties (temperature, volume, pressure, energy, entropy, etc.) from the properties of moving constituent particles and the interactions between them (including quantum phenomena). --Thermodynamics.

Since the point I'm making exploits the fact that all the fundamental laws of physics are time-reversible, including quantum theory, let's ignore for the moment the imprecision of classical thermodynamics because, "From a [classical] thermodynamics perspective, all natural processes are irreversible." --Irreversibility.

The truth is irreversibility is just a statistical property:

Quote

Thermodynamics defines the statistical behaviour of large numbers of entities, whose exact behavior is given by more specific laws. Since the fundamental laws of physics are all time-reversible, it can be argued that the irreversibility of thermodynamics must be statistical in nature, that is, that it must be merely highly unlikely, but not impossible, that a system will lower in entropy. --Irreversibility.

What does this imply?

Theoretically, a conceivable number of nuclear weapons strategically placed around the world could end all life on Earth almost simultaneously. If all the fundamental laws of physics are time-reversible, I believe it follows that it is mathematically possible for random atoms to rapidly assemble themselves into a great variety of living things in a single day.

The probability of such an event happening is so infinitesimal that it is clearly untestable but it must be a scientific theory. It follows from the definition of science and the laws of physics. It would be a far-reaching mathematical consequence of quantum physics.

This post has been edited by Shubee: 28 September 2008 - 12:44 PM
Reason for edit: for clarity

[npts2020]

I fail to see upon what you base the "belief" that the nuclear scenario you suggest is possible under any circumstance. I can also believe that a golden dragon will appear if I think about it hard enough but that does not make it a possibility worth considering for others. Now if I suggest a plausible mechanism for my dragon to appear (and can explain why it has never happened in the past) it then begins to become science. If you wish to say that one of the most studied areas of science is wrong, you have to have a better explanation than the current one or at least show very good proof that the thousnds of other people who devoted their life to this study, somehow were mistaken. IMO the real problem with your thinking is that you are a linear being (i.e. live your life in a unidirectional manner with respect to time.....born and die) and cannot concieve of a universe that may not be.

[traveler]

...and all the particles to make up a watch could never assemble to become a watch, right?

A watch is a reality, regardless of how it happened, it happened.

Evolution created a watch.

[Shubee]

traveler said:

...and all the particles to make up a watch could never assemble to become a watch, right?

Let stick to physics. Of course it's possible. There is no limit to improbability in quantum theory.

[Klaynos]

Shubee said:

Let's being with your definition of science. It follows then that quantum mechanics, together with all its untestable, far-reaching mathematical implications, is a scientific theory.

Lets not.

It's your OP which we're here to discuse, so answer the question swansont put to you.

I strongly suggest before you start saying things like what you've said above about BBT, you should look at the predictions and observations that have been made using it, it is not simply a case of saying well if everything popped into being then there should be CMBRm it makes precise and accurate predictions of the timeline from the big bang until now, and currently it with expansion theory make teh BEST model of the observable universe that we have.

[Shubee]

Shubee said:

Let's being with your definition of science.

Klaynos said:

Lets not.

What makes this discussion so interesting to me is the obvious disagreement between Klaynos and swansont on the fundamental meaning of science.

swansont obviously exercised administrative and/or moderator privileges at this forum when he edited my opening post on page 1, thinking that my choice of the Arial font in size 3 was too loud. The edit there says that.

To my opening question, which is a request for a definition of science in a quantum mechanical context, swansont kept asking me, "do you have any untestable implications of quantum physics in mind?"

After then getting a definition of science from swansont and exploring its meaning, I then proved with absolute mathematical perfection that quantum creationism is science. The whole discussion thread was then quickly moved from Quantum Theory to another section of the forum called Pseudoscience and Speculations.

Apparently, there exists a mathematically correct application of quantum theory that is pseudoscience and speculation after all. And apparently, according to some, even asking about the meaning of science is pseudoscience, it seems.

[Klaynos]

Shubee said:

After then getting a definition of science from swansont and exploring its meaning, I then proved with absolute mathematical perfection that quantum creationism is science. The whole discussion thread was then quickly moved from Quantum Theory to another section of the forum called Pseudoscience and Speculations.

You did? Hrmmm how odd... I don't see any maths...

Shubee said:

Apparently, there exists a mathematically correct application of quantum theory that is pseudoscience and speculation after all. And apparently, according to some, even asking about the meaning of science is pseudoscience, it seems.

I moved your thread. The reasons for this is you made a bold statement and when asked to clarify this you avoid the question repeatedly.

Please answer swansonts question.

There is every chance that if you stick to the scientific method as required by the rules of the forum your thread might get moved back into physics.

[foodchain]

think I can understand where you are coming from somewhat though I am a complete laymen of QM. As far as I know I think an instaton is a product of say a quantum vacuum, or metastable in a quantum vacuum. Beyond this I think a big push if I am not behind the times is trying to relate concepts like zero point energy and thermodynamics into some empirical understanding that matches what we see in regards to expansion of the universe.

I think also at as close as we can get to absolute zero effects like quantum tunneling still persist, so I have no idea what that means.

In regards to origin of life which you brought up I again think QM can be useful. In relation to such I like decoherence and einselection really more then any other directions people have taken QM. Now I don’t really grasp a harmonic oscillator now do I fully grasp thermodynamics but if a system is by natural forces, laws, etc, as a constant moves towards equilibrium my quantum leap is to suggest that primordial life is a product of this, as such it was a chemical formation that favored moving the system towards equilibrium. That in regards to geologic cycles on the earth the environment or the composition of such in regards to say carbon or water in time came to form say primordial life really as something that moved such towards equilibrium.

I think decoherence and einselection become useful here in regards to trying to deduce how such a chemical reaction or series or constant state of such would come about in regards to say thermodynamics or how energy behaves in regards to matter as it pertains to a system moving towards equilibrium.

Though overall beyond QM I think the biggest question in my mind is if conservation of energy will always truly hold. Simply put if that is the case then you deal with something infinite truly, being it can never be destroyed.

[Shubee]

swansont said:

What untestable implications do you have in mind?

Klaynos said:

What untestable result of QM?

swansont said:

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

swansont said:

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?

Shubee said:

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

That was one great, untestable, implied quantum physics theory, which answered the question. The second example I gave, which is another great, untestable, implied quantum physics theory, is thoroughly explained in post #22, dated today at 04:44 AM.

Klaynos said:

I moved your thread. The reasons for this is you made a bold statement and when asked to clarify this you avoid the question repeatedly.

I had already answered the question twice. What other bold statement did I make where I didn't answer a question?

Shubee said:

After then getting a definition of science from swansont and exploring its meaning, I then proved with absolute mathematical perfection that quantum creationism is science. The whole discussion thread was then quickly moved from Quantum Theory to another section of the forum called Pseudoscience and Speculations.

Klaynos said:

You did? Hrmmm how odd... I don't see any maths...

That's the beauty of it. I drew a picture.

This post has been edited by Shubee: 28 September 2008 - 08:22 PM
Reason for edit: for clarity

[Klaynos]

Shubee said:

That was one great, untestable, implied quantum physics theory, which answered the question. The second example I gave, which is another great, untestable, implied quantum physics theory, is thoroughly explained in post #22, dated today at 04:44 AM.



I had already answered the question. What other bold statement did I make where I didn't answer a question?

No you have not, you have not addressed the question at all but avoided it, we're looking for specific results of QM here not some handwaiving avoiding of the question.

[Shubee]

Klaynos said:

We're looking for specific results of QM here not some handwaiving avoiding of the question.

The opening post says:

Quote

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?

This is all a surprise to me. Why should you be mad at me for being clever enough to know how to formulate the untestable, far-reaching mathematical implications of quantum physics in my head?

"It startled him even more when just after he was awarded the Galactic Institute's Prize for Extreme Cleverness he got lynched by a rampaging mob of respectable physicists who had finally realized that the one thing they really couldn't stand was a smart-ass." — The Inventor of the Infinite Improbability Drive, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1979).

[Klaynos]

Shubee said:

The opening post says:



This is all a surprise to me. Why should you be mad at me for being clever enough to know how to formulate the untestable, far-reaching mathematical implications of quantum physics in my head?

That is shockingly vague and effectively meaningless... And impossible to comment on...

It's like making a prediction along the lines of "It will rain" it is useless... "It will read in newcastle tomorrow afternoon" is actually testable and specific...

[swansont]

Shubee said:

What makes this discussion so interesting to me is the obvious disagreement between Klaynos and swansont on the fundamental meaning of science.

What definition of "obvious" are you using here?

Shubee said:

swansont obviously exercised administrative and/or moderator privileges at this forum when he edited my opening post on page 1, thinking that my choice of the Arial font in size 3 was too loud. The edit there says that.

Yes, I did. There is no legitimate reason to use a large font for an entire post. It, along with ALLCAPS is considered rude — tantamount to shouting.

Shubee said:

To my opening question, which is a request for a definition of science in a quantum mechanical context, swansont kept asking me, "do you have any untestable implications of quantum physics in mind?"

I asked for context, because your question was too open-ended without it. I feared you might tread into some nonsense. Silly me.

Shubee said:

After then getting a definition of science from swansont and exploring its meaning, I then proved with absolute mathematical perfection that quantum creationism is science. The whole discussion thread was then quickly moved from Quantum Theory to another section of the forum called Pseudoscience and Speculations.

Apparently, there exists a mathematically correct application of quantum theory that is pseudoscience and speculation after all. And apparently, according to some, even asking about the meaning of science is pseudoscience, it seems.

Ok, given that context, the answer is no. Parts of a theory that are not testable are not scientific. That's why, for example, people are working on ways to get around singularities that pop up in theories. The theory fails to hold under those conditions.

However, the "random assembly" hypothesis is testable. You could test it on a smaller scale and see if it holds.

Shubee said:

So if a theory T is a related set of multiple physical propositions {P1, P2, P3, ... PN}, then T is testable and is therefore a scientific theory if there is just one part of the theory Pj that is testable? So you're saying that we really don't need to be able to create a state of universal nothingness to see if a universe can spontaneously pop itself into existence? You're saying that the entire big bang theory T is a scientific theory by virtue of just some of the Pj being confirmed empirically?

No, that wasn't what I was saying. Perhaps that's part of your confusion.

You haven't really defined what you mean by a proposition (I'll be very disappointed if any equivocation appears later on) but either the proposition has to be testable or it has to depend on another one that's testable. If it's independent then it can be tossed from the theory, so there's no reason to include it if it isn't somehow testable.


I'm still not seeing where you have discussed untestable predictions of quantum theory, as you stated in your first post. You can either do that and continue discussion, or not and the thread will be locked. Trolling is a behavior that grows tiresome.

This post has been edited by swansont: 29 September 2008 - 10:27 PM
Reason for edit: multiple post merged