QuantumT

Genesis 1:26: But they also recognized the gods of other people: https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium.MAGAZINE-when-the-jews-believed-in-other-gods-1.6315810

Thanks for your patience guys. Just to eliminate misunderstandings: So you can detect a particle, and collapse its wave function, without measuring its spin? And thereby keep it in a superposition?

Thanks! So what other states does the WF include, besides SP?

So the wave function is ambiguous, and the superposition is dual? What I'm trying to settle is if "wave function" and "superposition" are two expressions of the same phenomenon?

So the wave function and the superposition are identical?

Is psi (Ψ) identical to "superposition"? Or are they two different properties? The reason I ask, is because I've never been able to find a straight answer.

The first name of the jewish gods was Elohim. It translates: The gods who are both male and female. It was not until later they decided to have one god only, and call him Jahve or Yahweh.

Is that really necessary? This thread is split from a thread about quantum field theory (that's one), which is closely related to string theory (two) and M-theory (three), but all of them stems from quantum theory (four), and the issue is how we can combine one of them with general relativity (five), into a theory of everything (the jackpot!).

Reality isn't black and white, and it is reality that we are trying to figure out. How many experiments and observations has been used to confirm relativity? I'm quite sure it's more than two. Luckily they all agreed with the theory. Probably because it's correct. But there are many theories, who are also not black and white, and who can be confirmed with many experiments. What if one of them has five experiments to validate it, and one that does not? Even an improved version still does not. Then we need to re-evaluate the theory, right? PS. I hold the highest regard for our theories, but I must insist that they are just interpretations of smaller facts put together.

I respectfully disagree. Because, what if new evidence surfaces, that favors the eliminated one? All we can do is interpret the evidence we have right now, but we can never be absolutely sure.

Yes, "plenty of evidence" tends to cause that

As do I. But evidence is subject to interpretation. If you restrict it to a single interpretation, it becomes a dogma, and that is anti-science.

I never claimed that it is incorrect, I just said that it's not proven. It has plenty of evidence to support it, but it is just a theory (the T in QFT).

Are you talking about me? Please address me directly, if you have any issues. I believe the above mentioned issue has been solved, but swansont just didn't catch up yet.

Good to know! Thanks! In my language the word is (a mathematical) 'assumption'.

All right. I will try to do better in the future. Here is what I've learned. Feel free to correct me: Theory: Has plenty of experimental / observational evidence to support it. Hypothesis: Has some experimental / observational evidence to support it. Conjecture: Has mathematical evidence to support it.

I think I'm doing okay. It should be obvious what I mean.

I fail to see the difference. We have the same opinion, but just different native languages, so we use slightly different sentese structures.

Yes. Theories are interpretations of experimental/observational evidence. The experiment can't be wrong, but the interpretation can. That is why theories are never proven.

We should not turn this into a glass half full, half empty discussion. I'm just saying there is a reason we call them 'theories' and not facts. And that it's safer to use the word 'evidence' instead of 'proof', because 'proof is a radical word, that rejects interpretation.

I stand corrected. It is a theory. Science as a whole does sometimes use proof, but TP as a stand alone branch does not. Is that wrong?

Well, a singularity can have elements found elsewhere, but still have different rules. So both could be correct.

I meant that 'proof' is a concept not used in theoretical physics (not science), where 'evidence' is a preferred word. Agree?

How do I explain what?

QFT is a conjecture, as far as I know. We can call it evidence, but not proof. Proof is not really something science operates with, as far as I know.