merlin wood

Well unless you show that the empirical evidence validates your hypothosis we don't really need to pull it apart, we can point out obvious flaws without that though.

But then you haven't done so at all. And I insist that, like many accounts of scientific discoveries the whole my blog hypothesis needs to be taken into consideration in order to assess its validity.

This is why maths helps it allows easy and clear testing.

But I claim that in a large part of the nonlocal causal hypothesis on my blog, as this causally relates the findings of atoms, molecules and the their of subatomic to living organisms and their behaviour can be easily and clearly tested by using words and diagrams alone. And you are not prepared to demonstrate from the blog account that and how this is not the case.

QUOTE=Klaynos;418511]You've got no maths, therefore you can't compare it, therefore you can't say it's consistent therefore it's meaningless.

You still haven't demonstrated how this is so in relation to my blog account. So how does anyone know that this a prori statement is true?

I don't think I need say any more. It's clear that you want to try and show that you can demolish my arguments without due consideration of their foundations in my blog argument from the empirical evidence. So why should anyone take any of your opinions here seriously?

So I propose that the only way of attempting to develop a general theory of a nonlocally acting cause is to begin by asking the question:

How could quantum entanglement be explained?

That is, explained in the the usual scientific sense of justifying and describing enough details of a natural cause and its effects, and not by any interpretation that cannot be adequately supported by observable evidence that has been consistently confirmed.

So one key problem with this question is that quantum entanglement is an effect that can only be measured and described in terms of a correlation at a distance between quantum components. So, unlike the effects of all forces, this quantum effect has no strength that can be measured and described by mathematical calculation....

The burden of proof is on you I'm afraid.

Mostly no one will take it up due to lack of funding/time..

Right so let it be noted that my arguments are being pulled to bits without any consideration as to their validity given the the empirical evidence.

Unless it is supported/consistent mathematically it's not supported/consistent at all.

Clearly demonstrate that and how this is case.

That's what particle physics, nuclear physics and chemistry do.

Give me the exact details of particle physics, nuclear physics and chemistry that can be desribed to explain how matter can be and remain naturally orgsnised as atoms and molecules and given the action of the forces. So one could expect a sufficiently detailed and justified causal account that explains how the Schrodinger equation, quantum entanglement and the property of quantum spin can be described

Don't see how this follows.

Don't you really? gosh!!

The interpretation is just that it's unimportant for the maths. You know you don't have a theory here.

The interpretation isn't important the maths is important, again we're back to this.

 

But I do have a workable hypothesis here!!. And even if at this account doesn't presently involve measurement and calculation. And I'd say it's up to you to clearly demonstrate that and how this is not the case.

 

So, as I said, no physicist is likely to take this blog account seriously, especially also given their prejudices against Bohmian mechanics, as well as other reasons I can think of. This being so even though this hypothesis:

 

(1) is clearly supported by a methodical account that causally relates together a wide range of ordinary, observable and consistently confirmed natural and experimental evidence on the scale of photons, subatomic components, atom, molecules, living organisms and astronomical observations;

 

(2) provides diagrammatic representations of a nonloally acting cause that are justified by the experimental findings described by standard as well as Bohmian quantum mechanics;

 

(3) is consistent with Big Bang cosmological theory (without inflation, because in a nonlocal hypothesis a period of very rapid expansion in the early universe is not required to explain any astronomical observation) and

 

(4) could well be supported by further astronomical observations and measurement and mathematical calculation.

 

You also seem to be confused about what is and isn't possibly, you can describe sub atomic actions using "the atomic forces" which I assume you mean the strong and weak, that's what the whole of nuclear and particle physics does!

 

I'm saying that none of the forces in atoms and molecules - including the nuclear ones - can be described to explain the natural form and organisation of matter into atoms and molecules. So the action of these forces can't be described to explain the behaviour called quantum wave, spin and entanglement.

Takes a long time to build these experiments, most are down mines are are ENORMOUS! Hopefully the LHC will create some of these particles and shed some light on whether their cross sections are as tiny as some say they should be...

Or, on the other hand, perhaps the Large Hadron Collider will just create new particles that only last for fractions of a second, like all the other high energy collision experiments.

Lots of people are working on other models other than dark matter of course, but they've got to explain the distribution which as I understand it is rather hard.....

But then, of course, no physicist is going to come up with a theory of a nonlocally acting cause is s/he? And even if any did no one would listen to them.

So no self-respecting modern physicist would (dare to?) take seriously such daft, speculative/pseuodiscientific notions as these:

Despite all the measured uncertainty and probability in quantum theory, matter been found to be of a very varied and particular form and organisation as the atoms and molecules of the elements and compounds, with all their distinct and predictable physical and chemical properties. And no known properties of the atomic or other forces can be described to explain how all this material organisatiion is possible. Or, indeed, how matter can remain composed in their atomic and molecular forms and organisation.

But rather, matter has been detected and measured to consist almost all of the space between its subatomic components called electrons and atomic nuclei. And a force that is measured to be 40 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity is found to attract between electrons and nuclei and repel between electrons.

Also, when separated from being components of atoms or molecules, in suitable experiments, single consecutive subatomic components in a beam can be detected to arrange themselves one by one into what can be called wave interference and diffraction patterns, even though being directly detected on a screen as point like objects or particles. While much the same results have been obtained from very low intensity beams of photons. And the Schrödinger equation describes what may be called a standing wave property in the behaviour of elctrons as atomic components, thus accounting for their discrete energy states and the emmission and absorption of photons resulting from changes in these states.

Of course, given an indeterminate, Copenhagen type interpretation of quantum mechanics, the wave properties of photons and matter particles need not be thought to represent particular forms of behaviour beyond the experimental results. And many experiments have been performed and predictions made of the results of more experiments given the quantum mechanics that just describes the directly detected and measured behaviour of quantum objects.

So that the very large majority of physicists can completely ignore or else disparage the peculiar and predictively quite unsuccessful Bohmian quantum mechanics. This being an interpretation that does account for the directly detected experimental results in terms of a description of the hidden variable behaviour of quantum objects in motion. That is, even though Bohmian mechanics has been systematically justified and mathematically described in detail, and developed to be entirely consistent with a wide range of experimental results, as well as eliminating the paradoxes of indeterminate interpretations.

Thus, rather than describing quantum behaviour in terms of an unvisualisable superposition of states while undetected, the Bohmian account describes quantum objects as both extended waves and particles with continuous and definite trajectories while in motion, and which involves the description of an additional cause called the quantum potential that would need to be nonlocally acting.

Given that very few physicists take Bohmian mechanics seriously then, probably none would accept the idea that any cause could act nonlocally on the astronomical scale and together with the force of gravity.

So, obviously, its just airy fairy nonsense to suppose that, because the atomic and molecular (as well as organic) form and organisation of matter on the small scale can’t be explained by describing the action of the atomic forces, this could also be true of gravity in relation to the formation and form of the galaxies of stars and planetary systems, and the galaxy walls and filamentary clusters around cosmic voids on the very large scale...

So the DAMA may well have been positive.

Or maybe not on the other hand. So from the wikipedia entry on Dark matter:

"Although dark matter was detected by its gravitational lensing in August 2006,[13] many aspects of dark matter remain speculative. The DAMA/NaI experiment and its successor DAMA/LIBRA have claimed to directly detect dark matter passing through the Earth, though most scientists remain skeptical since negative results of other experiments are (almost) incompatible with the DAMA results if dark matter consists of neutralinos,"

So we're primarily talking about supersymetry particles here, the lack of knowledge of the mass and cross section means it's not surprising that results are negative, have a look at neutrino experiments and according to all best guesses the neutrino is ALOT more interacting than proposed WIMPs.

 

So the summary of the paper seems to say the experiments arn't good enough yet...

That is, over five years ago they may have been inadequate and so still aren't?

.

Or alternatively, why can't one begin to wonder: surely it shouldn't take over 20 years of all this experimentation in 10 diferent countries to directly and definitely detect at least some of this postulated 90% of all matter in the universe?

He lists many but talks in depth about one. Or at least one type.

OK then, here are some details about more experiments in a review that also happens to be dated 2002.

In the goonle search it looks like there are no more such reviews for "non-specialists" at later dates. One could wonder why, I suppose. So this one says:

"Chances are good to see an exciting year 2002/3 for the direct detection of dark matter particles."

The experiment described there could be either, I'm not a particle physicist, and some of the notation in s meaningless to me, but from what I can get is that it could be the WIMPs didn't annihilate as expected or move atoms as expected after collisions, or the cross sectional area they considered was way too large. They were taking 10 kg/day exposures and one of the predictions was 1 event/100kg/year! Of course it might have measured nothing because there was nothing there to measure whether this is because there's no dark matter here (hard to believe) or because it doesn't exist. There are too many unknowns with the experiment.

Er... "Experiment" singular? I'm sorry?? On this link to a review of past and, in 2002, current and proposed dark matter experiments - as provided at the beginning of my post #16 above - they are talking here about 39 of them carried out since 1987 and listed on the third page as:

1. IGEX

2. ORPHEUS

3. NaI

4. NaIAD

5. ZEPLIN I

6. ZEPLIN II/III

7. ZEPLIN-MAX

8. DRIFT-I

9. DRIFT-10

10. COSME

11. IGEX

12. ANAIS

13. ROSEBUD

14. COSME

15. IGEX

16. ANAIS

17. ROSEBUD

18. Saclay-NaI

19. EDELWEISS I

20. EDELWEISS II

21. Hdlberg/Mscw

22. HDMS

23. Genius

24. DAMA

25.LIBRA

26. Xenon

27. CRESST-I

28. CRESST-II

29. CUORICINO

30. CUORE

31. XMAS

32. Elegants V

33. Elegants VI

34. LiF

35. SIMPLE

36. CDMS-1

37. CDMS-II

38. XENON

39. PICASSO

...and costructed at 14 different sites in Russia, Switzerland, UK, Spain, France, Italy, Japan, France, USA and Canada.

Failed is one that for some reason doesn work, whether this is because they're build badly or something that isn't known about taken into account.

 

A negative experiment is one that works but give a different result to that expected.

 

If an experiment is predicted to show a particle which does not appear that would probably be a negative result, show me these "20 independent" experiments, and what particles they were looking for and whether these were part of the standard model or not. Dark matter is a hypothesis we are trying to find out what causes the effect...part if it seems to be due to neutrinos but there's not enough and they don't explain the distribution we see.

Here's an overview dated July 2002 that includes a list of 24 WIMP cold dark matter experiments that wrere then either operational or completed, with another 14 that were planned or under construction.

But whether you call any of these projects failures or negative - and I can hardly imagine that they could all be poorly constructed they've now had plenty of practise at setting them up - the fact is that the appropriate WIMP particles have not been found by such effort since the first experiement in 1987. And I'd call that overall result pretty negative anyway.

Meanwhile, I feel I need very much to emphasise that there's still this crucial factor that from this extradimensional model of a nonlocally acting cause I 've constructed - plus the form conserving property of the cause - an essentially quite simple theory (or hypothesis) can be developed that, as I have argued, clearly solves the problems of the identity of many immaterial or invisible minds and the indivisibiliy of consiousness, as well as providing a basically simple explanation for the reproductive and species protective behaviour of organisms generally. And so I can reasonably insist that this part of the nonlocal causal hypothesis cannot be separated from the cosmological argument and ignored.

For it can be pointed out that there just is this universal problem of explaining how the particular form and subatomic organisation of matter as atoms molecules and living organisms is possible given just the known properties of the forces. And by constructiing a diagrammatc quantum hypothesis and by considering such a wide range of various natural evidence together, I'd say I've put the strongest case yet that I've found anywhere for the existence and nature of this additional cause. While since this cause cannot be described in any way as acting by poshing or pulling objects then it cannot be properly described as a force.

There's a difference between experiments that fail and experiments that are negative.

 

Show me an experiment that has been negative for say WIMPs...

 

You've brought this up and been challenged on it before, can we not go over it all again?

Go on then, tell us the exact distinction between failed and negative experiments. Because you haven't done so up to now.

I can imagine that failures could include ones that haven't been properly constructed but this wouldn't apply to over 20 independent dark matter direct detection experiments that have not detected the appropriate kinds of particle.

Well, it's not much of a test if the test can't have negative results.

 

BTW, I probably won't be able to see your replies anymore...

Who said the tests couldn't have negative results? The point is that negative test results needn't disprove or falsify a theory or hypothesis or postulate, if you will, as all the 20 odd years of negative experimental results for the direct detection of the right kind of dark matter clearly illustrate.

So it's urmmm not science then? You've got to make mathematical falsifiable predictions for it to be physics...

I am not a cosmologist but I've concluded that the theory should be mathematically testable, if not falsifiable, and in detail from astronomical observations. And there is already a measured and mathematically described relationship between spiral galaxy rotation and the acceleration rate of the universal expansion which could be explained as a nonlocal effect - this relationship not having been explained either by dark matter or MOND.

And then again, just the direct experimental detection and identification of the appropriate kind(s) of dark matter that could be shown to explain spiral galaxy rotation curves, the behaviour of galaxies in clusters and the observed gravitational lensing effects would as good as falsify a nonlocal cosmological hypothesis, so given this and I have really lost the whole cosmoogical argument.

You may call the existence of dark matter a "postulate" but the wikipedia entry calls dark matter a "hypothetical form of matter". Also, cosmologists often write and speak about dark matter as if it has been definitely shown to exist and don't mention the fact that many purpose-built experiments have been carried out since 1987 without finding a trace of the substance, and despite this needing to comprise 90% of all matter in the universe.

And then no one has mentioned that fact that the extra dimensional diagrams in the blog hypothesis reveal a clear relationship between the quantum evidence and certain features that can be described of the mind and consciousness that have been discussed in European and English language philosophy for centuries. While it is also shown here how the form conserving property as a species form conserving cause can be related to certain general features of the behaviour of living organisms including human beings.

I don't see any maths there... how can you draw technical diagrams showing anything without maths backing them up?

If you read the whole of the account you will see that the rest of it backs up the quantum diagrams only when these are related to the large scale natural evidence examined.

As I say, these diagrams can only be justified verbally. So that there is just no way at all of initially justifying or describing these causal diagrams by mathematical calculation since no details can be described of the nonlocal cause by measurement and mathematical calculation (except that in the Bell test experiments entanglement effects have been measured to occur at faster that the speed of light). For entanglement correlations have no measurable strength, they are just measired relationships of quantum behaviour such spin-up to spin-down for subatomic particles. And that this is so is just one crucial reason why physicists are stuck for a causal explanation of quantum entanglement.

Think of a cause that, instead of pushing or pulling or attracting or repelling objects, only acts so as to maintain the the subatomic organisation of atoms and molecules. How could you measure and calculate any details of the action of such a cause other than the speed of its effects?

So you're proposing something that would act sortof like a 5th force, to explain entanglement... what evidence other than feeling that that would be nice have you got that that's required?

Well, the most I can do is to refer you to an 18,000 word hypothesis.

This account also provides diagrams that show how a cause acting from additional spatial dimensions can be initially justified and clearly represented in three dimensions. A suitable quantum hyputhesis having thus been developed, this is then related to large scale evidence of where a nonlocal cause could also be thought to act.

So, just as with many other scientific discoveries, this one can only be justified and described in a detailed and methodical account in relation to the appropiate natural evidence.

If you're talking about combining all the 4 forces, I think all you've got is a theory of everything, not impossible, lots of people are working on them!

But then as I said above:

"Hence to support this argument, sufficiently clear reasons need to be found from the empirical evidence to consider that there is just one cause with certain universal properties that acts upon matter and energy in addition to and together with the forces. And, rather than acting by pushing or pulling objects, this would be a cause that acts constantly so as to produce and maintain or conserve the form and organisation of matter and energy despite the action of all the forces."

So this would not be a theory that unifies the forces at all.

But instead a general theory of a nonlocal cause would explain what cannot be explained as or juat as effects caused by any of the forces.

So you will find no account in quantum theory that explains the behavour called quantum wave, spin and entanglement by sufficiently justifying and describing enough details of a cause and its effects upon objects in motion. And one can conclude that because this is so, no quantum theory can explain how matter can exist or persist as atoms or molecules, that is, despite these smallest parts of the elements and compounds of matter consisting almost all of the space between their subatomic components as electrons and nuclei and the powerful charge force acting so as to attract between electrons and nuclei and repel between electrons.

Also, the thought can be that there need to be details that cannot be described of the charge force to explain how matter can be in their varous and particular forms as the elements and compounds. The Exclusion Principle being an inadequate explanation because the quantum entanglement effect needs to be described to account for how electrons are organised at a distance in relation to one another around the nuclei of atoms and molecules.

Then another conclusion can be that if a nonlocal cause acted just so as to maintain the subatomic form and organisation of matter then the properties of this cause could not be described by measurement and mathematical calculation, that is, just as it is not possible to so measure and describe any cause of the effects of quantum entanglement just as such.

So physicists often argue that the entanglement correlation, which can be measured beween subatomic and photon components, is an effect without a cause. Whereas it could be insisted that there needs to be a cause that acts so as to maintain the entangled correlation. This correlation has now been experimentally measured between two beams of photons separated to a distance of 144km.

The quantum effect has not been measured to vary with increasing distance and so it can be concluded that any cause of quantum entanglement could not be described as surrouding objects in 3D space. A nonlocal cause could thus be thought to act from spatial dimensions outside the three of the world experienced.

So the question could be asked:

Does a nonlocal and extradimensional cause act universally so as to maintain the natural form and rganisation of all matter and, if so, could enough observable evidence of where this cause may be thought to act be examined together to clearly show that and how this cause acts upon matter and energy?

On another thread I said I’d sign of for good. But in response to popular demand…well OK, to one disappointed reader anyway, ie:

Aww man! I wanted to see flames flying all over the place!

 

He'll probably be back soon enough...

…I thought I'd start a new thread.

To describe what this thread is basically about is quite simple. But, I’ve concluded, to effectively argue for a theory of a nonlocal cause just from the consistently confirmed empirical evidence is very subtle and requires an account quite unlike any other in modern science. This and the fact that a very wide range of natural evidence needs to be examined together to adequately support this theory, and just to definitely show both that and how an invisible cause acts in addition to the forces are, I suggest, sufficient reasons why academic scientists have not begun to develop such an explanatory account.

So the basic argument here is that there is a single scientific answer to the question of how matter can be and remain in its natural form and organisation both on the smallest and astronomical scale, and given the action of the known causes that have all been called forces. That is, given all the causes that can be generally described as acting by pushing or pulling objects, and which include the four fundamental interactions of gravity, electromagnetism, and the nuclear strong and weak forces.

Hence to support this argument, sufficiently clear reasons need to be found from the empirical evidence to consider that there is just one cause with certain universal properties that acts upon matter and energy in addition to and together with the forces. And, rather than acting by pushing or pulling objects, this would be a cause that acts constantly so as to produce and maintain or conserve the form and organisation of matter and energy despite the action of all the forces. That is, matter and energy as:

(1) subatomic components of matter and their forms of behaviour called quantum wave, spin and entanglement,

(2) atoms, molecules and living organisms,

(3) the galaxies of stars and planetary systems, galaxy walls and clusters and cosmic voids, and

(4) the light and other energy that radiates from matter as photons and their wave, polarised and entangled behaviour.

That this theoretical argument is very subtle and, indeed, may also be thought implausible, can be evinced in the first place from the fact it needs, to start with, to examine the experimental findings of matter and radiant energy on the smallest scale and, in particular, the evidence of the object behaviour described by quantum mechanics. This being behaviour that both cannot be observed or detected by any means from objects in motion and, as described by quantum mechanics, is unlike any behaviour has been directly observed of any objects. And of these quantum findings the conclusion can be that the strongest evidence for the action of an additional cause is that of quantum entanglement.

The development of such a theory may seem impossible. But is it though?

It's called peer review, Merlin. It's not personal. Look at the rest of the pseudoscience/speculation forums and see we do this to all hypotheses, including our own.

 

If you keep degrading the channel to personal attacks instead of proper science, we might have to stop wasting our time.

 

Also, that will win you a suspension. Or a ban. Reporting your threads for flaming and/or personal attacks is really not contributing to my time.

 

The reason we reply that your hypothesis is not empirically supported is because we haven't seen anything to support it. You posted a bit of info that might start doing that, finally, but that still awaits analysis.

You are the one proposing the hypothesis. The burden of proof and show empirical process is on you. Not on us. We haven't seen it, hence your theory is not yet supported.

 

 

 

I would recommend, as we are reading through your hypothesis to see if it's realistic or not, that you go over what Logical Fallacies are. Our examination and remarks might be more logical when you understand why we claim logic to be illogical.

 

So far I've counted a few, among other things ad hominem and appeal to authority. You might want to refresh yourself on them to avoid them in the future.

 

 

~moo

This thread has had nothing whatsoever to do with "peer review" at all. So no-one has yet bothered to examine any of the argument on my blog. And so I don't expect well reasoned argument here.

Hence I'm signing off for good. Bye Bye

Stop with the personal attacks already. Other than wasting our time reporting it, it's also not contributing to your attempts to make your theory valid.

 

As I said, I *skimmed through* the humongous website. I didn't read it all. Which is why I asked for you to post what you think is your best proof in here. Don't forget you came to us, Merlin, we didn't come to you. The burden of proof is on you, not us. Own up to it already.

 

Now. That said, I'm going to spend a bit of time reading through your proposed proof and answer after dinner.

 

I will ask that you refrain from degrading this to a personal attack bashing, because if you continue, I don't think many of us will find this worth our time. Not to mention it's against the rules of the forum, and can earn you a suspension. Bzz.

 

We can be adults about this, can't we? Now let's talk science instead of having a silly flame party.

 

~moo

Well sorry but I've found this thread personally degrading since it seems you're trying to deliberately and unjustly undermine everything I say.

So I said above that the hypothesis is empirically supported. and then you reply as if it is not. I tell you to read my blog and then you say you've read it but can't find any empirical arrgument, even though the whol article is an empirical justification from a wide range of empirical evidence.

Also I've just said that the hypothesis as whole needs to be taken into consideration for it to be considered valid. So especially given the response I've had here so far why should I discuss bits of my hypothesis, which are insufficient arguments by themselves anyway?

Alrighty then, don't show math, show us the empirical evidence you keep talking about. I have skimmed through your blog and I have seen none to justify me spending time reading it in more detail, for the simple raeson that I haven't seen any empirical evidence.

I've seen you CLAIM empirical evidence, but seen none.

Well I'm sorry, but you are blind or if not, lying. So here's a direct quote on quantum mechanics from my blog hypothesis at http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com/:

The EPR paper concluded that ‘no reasonable definition of reality’ would allow such a connection at a distance between objects, and so a quantum mechanics that implied these correlations must be an incomplete account of quantum behaviour; whereas in a complete quantum theory there would be no such implications. However, Irwin Schrödinger, who first devised a mathematical equation that accounted for the electron’s atomic behaviour in terms of a wave property, described EPR correlations as resulting from ‘quantum entanglement’ and regarded this as an essential distinguishing feature of quantum behaviour.

Then since 1972 many experiments have been carried out where the correlations could be measured at various large scale distances both between nuclear components of matter and between photons of light in entangled composite states, and just as described in the 1935 paper. These included the first experiments that measured EPR effects to occur at faster than the speed of light between photons at a distance of 18 metres,[2] and a similar experiment where the correlations were measured over 10.9 kilometres.[3] While the thought can be that these composite states can be measured because a relationship of quantum behaviour, such as the ‘spin-up’ in relation to ‘spin-down’ of protons or electrons, or the different directions of polarisation of photons, remain in these relationships despite the effects of experimental measurements.

T

The details of these behavioural relationships need not be described in this hypothesis. It is sufficient to conclude that the

---------------

page 5

Pauli principle is an indication of how for atoms and molecules to possess their visible and chemical properties their subatomic components need to be organised at a distance in relation to one another. So that given our form and organisation conserving causal hypothesis we can propose that such singlet or composite behavioural relationships between or amongst quantum objects can be measured in experiments because a distinct cause acts at a distance so as to conserve them.

But then there is the problem that if EPR effects occur at super-luminary speeds, they would at least appear to contravene the principles of relativity theory. Moreover, there are widely accepted interpretations of the quantum evidence which consider that none of the findings that are detected and measured in experiments need correspond to what occurs in the world beyond the experimental results: the quantum wave, spin and entanglement being behaviour that is both unobservable from objects in motion and indeterminate. Thus such behaviour is actually measured to obey a systematic and universal principle of indeterminacy, often called Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle (HUP). Also, a mathematically very detailed and successful account of the observable evidence, called quantum field theory (QFT), has been developed without needing to describe any further cause that could only be described from its effects from any of the results of quantum experiments. And then one could just ask: what could cause anything to occur that has no measurable strength, surely any cause would need to have some strength to produce any effect at all?

So these are all factors that can provide reasons to conclude that matter and radiation is just, somehow, self-organising or that, since there seems to be nothing that causes the particular results of quantum experiments, the universe experienced is just one amongst an indefinite number of worlds elsewhere that are organised differently or need not display much or any organisation. Or else, especially in a mathematically detailed development of QFT in a unified theory of the four forces that act at a distance, there could be found hidden properties of these known causes and of quantum objects to sufficiently explain the findings described by quantum mechanics.

Notes

[2]Aspect, Alain, Dalibard, Jean, Roger, Gerard (1982b) Experimental tests of Bell’s inequality using time-varying analysers. Physical Review Letters, 49, 1804.

[3} Tittel, W., Brendel, J., Gisen, B., Herzog, T., Zbinden, H and Gisen, N, (1998) Experimental demonstration of quantum correlations over more than 10km. Physical Review A, 57, 3229.

So I think readers of this thread should not take your word for anything you say.

For something to be supported empirically it needs to make mathematical predictions...

No it doesn't. Darwin's Origin of the Species was supported by a lot of empirical evidence and made no mathematical predictions. And, like Darwins theory, the hypothesis of a non-local cause and effects is in large part about life on Earth and the behaviour of living organisms, as well as about quantum mechanics and astronomical evidence.

The fact is that with all its mathematics, by assuming the action of the forces alone. present physics cannot at all adequately explain how the Cosmos can be in its consistent, presently observed form on the astronomically large, organic or the smallest scale as matter and the energy it radiates.

And you could ask how much mathematical calculation, if any, could be used to explain how matter as atoms, molecules and living organism can be and remain the way that it is given the action of the forces?

This is silly, we're churning water.

 

There is NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY to date (NONE) that is accepted without empirical support and proof. None. Not Einstein's theories, not Newton's, not Darwin's... they're ALL supported by evidence, otherwise they would be tossed out of scientific acceptance - as other theories HAVE BEEN. Even if (and your depictions are very innacurate, but i'll entertain them) the scientists who came up with these theories lacked proper basis for them, they had to provide them eventually (Darwin's book is FULL of support, explanation, observational data and rational reasoning) or their theories were claimed bunk.

It's you who are are churning water, Mooeypoo.

Are you blind? Why don't you read my posts here properly???? I've just said my hypothesis is supported empirically.

And if only you looked at my quantum hypothesis at:

http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com/

then you'd see the whole article is FULL of empirical support from evidence of quantum mechanics, living organisms, astronomy and cosmology for proposing a theory of a nonlocal cause and effects. If only string theory was like this,

It's just that my argument can only be adequately stated by considering ALL the experimental and natural evidence I've cited together on this blog.

So its no use stating bits of my argument on this thread, is it? You MUST read that blog carefully all the way through to clearly see that my 18,000 word - plus diagrammatic - argument is empirically valid. Although, just like other major theoretical discoveries, this theory really needs an account of book length to sufficiently support, or "prove" it, if you like

And as I say this theory is like no other in science , while the whole point of my posting on science forums is to find an open minded physicist/cosmologist - or preferably both - to further develop the argument mathematically. But so far it seems this quest is quite futile. So rather than possessing a properly scientific attitude it seems physicists on internet science forums, at least, are as bigoted and narrow minded as Creationists and Muslem fundamentalists.

Actually, untrue. Einstein was a theoretician - he explained and proved his theories logically and supported them with math, then wrote in his theses that he expects the experimentalists to support (or destroy) his theories.

 

On top of that, whether he liked math or not is irrelevant - his theories were supported on proofs and maths otherwise they'd be joining the long long line of rejected false theories.

 

If it's not supported in reality (hence - if it's not PROVEN) - it's not true.

Einstein could not have done anything without an outstanding independent imagination. That's why his best work was highly original and worked out idependently of ansd contrary to the academic consensus of the time. Whereas his later work on general relativity was influenced by other contempory academics and the definite existence of gravity waves has yet to be demonstrated experimentally.

I'm not keen on the word 'proof' for the validity of any scientific theory because of the association of the word with mathematics. Mathematical models can turn out to be empirically wrong and proof in mathematics is not to do with empirical demonstraton. So theoretical physicists can be entranced with the complex mathematically worked out models of string theory that can be proven to be valid just as such. Whereas, after more than 30 years, you can still ask where is the observable evidence that demonstrates or tests the validity of this theory as a scientific account?

By avoiding proof and arguing against the need for such proof you're doing nothing other than joining the other previous (and current) non-scientific hypothesizers in these forums, and give absolutely no reason to give your theory any kind of credence.

I have NOWHERE argued against the need for proof, if proof means clear demonstration from the observable evidence!!! That's just a complete distortion of what I've been arguing. I've just insisted such empirical demonstration is the essence of science and which you call proof.

Convince us. With reality. Give us proof.

I've found that, rather like Darwin's theory of evolution, you can sufficiently argue for a theory of a nonlocally acting cause and its effects only by considering together a wide ranging accumulation of various natural evidence. And also, like biological evolution, only subsequently can this theory be supported by measurement and mathematical calculation.

So if you can call it 'proof', then I can only refer you to the hypothesis at http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com/ as an argument from the natural and experimental evidence that's at all adequate. But then you need not expect such 'proof' from any scientic hypothesis in any case. And, no doubt, physicists would not call this proof until the cosmological part of my blog hypothesis is supported by further measurement, mathematical calculation and experimental tests

As I've already indicated a non-local causal theory is just not like any other that can be found in physics, or in any other natural science. Yet it could be considered just as much science as other generally accepted scientific theories because it is supported by (a lot of) consistently confirmable natural evidence.

And here I can only give the barest indication of why this theory is unique and why it's very unlikely that any academically trained scientist would develop an initial hypothesis for such atheory..

So firstly, despite all the successes of the standard model quantum theory, you can still instist, with Richard Feynman, that "nobody understands quantum mechanics" in the sense that no-one can show how the results of quantum experiments "can be that way". For to do so can be thought to require an explanation where enough details were sufficiently justified and described of a cause of behaviour that can by no means be directly observed of objects in motion. Such behaviour having been called wave, spin and entanglement.

Then one can reason that, without a sufficient causal explanation of the quantum behavior there's no adequate explanation of how matter can exist at all as atoms and molecules. So that physicists may cite the Schrodinger or Dirac equation. the uncertainty principle or the exclusion principle as an explanation of how electrons can remain organised as components of atoms and molecules and not fall into nuclei as the result of the hugely powerful charge force. But the quantum theory has nothing definite to say as to whether a cause of wave, spin and entanglement behaviour can or needs to be described to explain how atoms and molecules can remain in their forms and organisation despite the internal and external action all the forces.

Now think that there could be a universal distinct and invisible cause that acts just so as to maintain the form and organisation of matter. How could you sufficiently justify and describe such a cause in enough detail to show that and how it acts upon matter and given that it would have no measurable strength, could not be described as surrounding objects and any description of such a cause could not be supported from any kind of evidence of atoms, molecules or the energy that matter radiates apart from quantum mechanics?

Very few people define "competent physicists" this way, I hope you know that.

Einstein actually wasn't an outstanding mathematician, what he had that so many physicists lack, these days especially it seems, was an outstanding independent imagination

And, yes, proofs -- how do you expect a theory to stand on anything or be even partially valid without any proof or substantiation? If you suggest replacing an existing theory (that works and explains things quite well, btw) - you need to give a reason as to why your alternative is better than the existing ones. And show that your theory is more realistic..

 

hence proof.

Proof is about logic and mathematics. Newton didn't prove his laws of gravity he demonstrated them from the observable findings. Empirical science is about support from the experimental and/or natural evidence. If you don't have that then it's not science.

That's not science, though, it's art.

Biology and medicine could not do without verbally justified diagrams.

So if these so called "Competent Physicists" work it out and find you wrong, your theory is dead in the water?

 

It would indeed be.

 

 

Where are these proofs of yours, and who would you call a competent physicist..?

Um proofs? Didn't say anything about proofs here. A competent physicist, I'd guess, would not need to have outstanding mathematic abilities but rather good imaginative insight and a quite thorough knowledge of astronomy and cosmology.

Oh and how do you create your new diagrams without maths?

Their just visual diagrams that are justified verbally from the evidence of quatum wave behaviour and entanglement. Anf there's no way that the properties of the cause of quantum entanglement can be justified described by mathematical calculation. Except, that is, from Bell inequality experiments where the effect has been measured to occur at faster that the speed of light.

So what are you adding?

Ah well, as I think I've already said that's up to competant physicists - who are prepared to take this hypothesis seriously by carefully considering all the natural and experiemental evidence I've already cited in my blog hypothesis - to work out for themselves. As I've already said and as open minded individuals can see at my blog, a well reasoned hypothesis for a theory of anonlocal cause and its effects can be argued quite convincingly without any mathematical calculations. But then where are there such open minded physicists on the internet? I ask myself.

In my half asleep state I can't say I see any maths?

Nope. If you care to enquire about Bohmian mechanics, eg here, as well as for the astronomical evidence, the maths has already been done by others.