QuantumT

25 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

Did you make that up?  Prove to me that the Jews were polytheists.  They never were.

Genesis 1:26:

Quote

Let us make humans in our image, so they look like us.

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?

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Every state or super position of states are described by wave function. The two won't have the same wave function but both states are described by them

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

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

The wave function describes the state; and in the case of superposition it describes the superposition of states.

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?

Just now, Mordred said:

It's commonly used to define a state. The state can be determined or in superposition.

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.

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Can you list three?

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!).

20 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Think about this. If a model is eliminated because a better experiment shows it's wrong, nothing new is going to surface. Science can prove something is wrong, but it can't prove something is right. If one model is eliminated in favor of a different model, it's because it was wrong. THAT is what the extra experiment showed.

New evidence can always surface, but once something is proven wrong, nothing can reverse that. How could it? My hypothesis that all swans are white gets proven wrong by a single instance of a black swan. What new evidence could reverse that? My new hypothesis, that all swans are white or black, no matter how much evidence I compile, will never be proof. It would remain a theory until all swans (ever) were accounted for. 

Also, you should NEVER say it's "just a theory". A theory is far better than an answer (have you read what some people consider to be "answers"?). Theory is as strong as it gets in science. It's a guarantee we'll always keep working on the problem, and not just assume we know an "answer".

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.

38 minutes ago, swansont said:

If evidence supports two different models than you need to do a better experiment that eliminates one of them. "Interpretation" is the wrong word for this.

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.

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The T means it's generally accepted.

Yes, "plenty of evidence" tends to cause that 

1 minute ago, Amazing Random said:

 Yes but most people stick to the evidence.

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.

4 minutes ago, Amazing Random said:

I am not trying to offend you , but all of the physicists in the world believe that QFT is correct . So either you are a genius or you are wrong .

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).

6 minutes ago, Amazing Random said:

He wont change his mind anytime soon and this discussion is nice.

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.

17 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Conjecture is the operative word, in that it is incomplete...

Good to know! Thanks!

In my language the word is (a mathematical) 'assumption'.

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Nope...

and that's why you fail.

Evidence can only ever look back at our description's, right or wrong can't prove the decision; it can only guess the outcome...

1 minute ago, Curious layman said:

I'm not nitpicking but..... what if it's not obvious? Isn't that the point of being precise?

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.

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Science tends toward using more precise definitions.

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

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Nope, theories are never proven because of evidence, whereas hypothesis is showed to be theory/probable when there is. 

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

6 minutes ago, Amazing Random said:

It is verified experimentally. And from the definition of science if something is verified experimentally , it is true and theories must change and adapt to this truth.

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.

3 minutes ago, Amazing Random said:

QFT has been experimentally proved . Using QFT we were able to calculate things very very unbelieveably precisely.

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.

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

True. But this seems to contradict your claim that gravity doesn't exist at the quantum level. Photons have momentum. Electrons have mass. Therefore they should curve spacetime and cause gravity.

Yes. But it was your suggestion that QFT is a "conjecture" that I was objecting to. It is a very well-tested theory. 

Theoretical physics is part of science.

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?

3 minutes ago, Amazing Random said:

QFT.If relativistic events didnt occur at the microscopic world , QFT would have been wrong.

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

1 minute ago, Strange said:

QFT is one of the most well-tested theories we have. If you were going to apply the word "proof" to any scientific theory, then it would be a good candidate.

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

2 minutes ago, Amazing Random said:

Ok but QFT seems to work pretty well . How do you explain it?

How do I explain what?

3 minutes ago, Amazing Random said:

Yes but relativistic events occur in the microscopic world . A big proof for my statement is QFT.

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.