Main > Everything Else
Faster than light? Someone with a big brain can help?
scofthe7seas:
--- Quote from: Vigo on September 26, 2011, 05:40:52 pm ---Show me empirical poof of string theory, and we will talk. :lol
--- End quote ---
Vigo, per your request : The Imperial Poof of String Theory
SuprSprint:
--- Quote from: Vigo on September 26, 2011, 05:40:52 pm ---the theory of gravity has not really changed much since Einstein, and yes it is a specific scientific theory standing as a cornerstone of physics.
--- End quote ---
And yet it remains just a theory, and as such deemed by the OP to be unworthy of being used to prove a point. QED
--- Quote from: Vigo on September 26, 2011, 05:40:52 pm ---much of which is so hypothetical that it has not been backed by any majority of the scientific community nor accepted as remotely provable to begin with.
--- End quote ---
Having spent a *considerable* amount of time in the Department of Physics at major university, I can tell you that quantum theory is far from "not been backed by any majority of the scientific community". But since you probably wouldn't recognize any of the local experts names, I'd suggest that you study the works of Einstein, Bohr, de Broglie, Schrodinger, et.al. If you prefer more recent names, perhaps you would recognize Richard Feynman or Stephen Hawking.
Even going beyond names into specifics, the wave nature of matter has been tested and substantiated countless times. Wave-particle duality is demonstrable by any 1/2 decent high school student, and was debated for centuries before quantum mechanics provided a mutually inclusive solution. Quantum tunneling forms the basis of the electron microscope, radioactive decay, and more recently quantum semiconductors and computing devices.
Vigo:
--- Quote from: pldoolittle on September 26, 2011, 10:06:57 pm ---
--- Quote from: Vigo on September 26, 2011, 05:40:52 pm ---the theory of gravity has not really changed much since Einstein, and yes it is a specific scientific theory standing as a cornerstone of physics.
--- End quote ---
And yet it remains just a theory, and as such deemed by the OP to be unworthy of being used to prove a point. QED
--- End quote ---
I never said it wasn't a theory, I am just stating that is one very specific theory substantiated and used time and time again, where quantum physics is a branch of Science.
--- Quote from: pldoolittle on September 26, 2011, 10:06:57 pm ---
--- Quote from: Vigo on September 26, 2011, 05:40:52 pm ---much of which is so hypothetical that it has not been backed by any majority of the scientific community nor accepted as remotely provable to begin with.
--- End quote ---
Having spent a *considerable* amount of time in the Department of Physics at major university, I can tell you that quantum theory is far from "not been backed by any majority of the scientific community". But since you probably wouldn't recognize any of the local experts names, I'd suggest that you study the works of Einstein, Bohr, de Broglie, Schrodinger, et.al. If you prefer more recent names, perhaps you would recognize Richard Feynman or Stephen Hawking.
Even going beyond names into specifics, the wave nature of matter has been tested and substantiated countless times. Wave-particle duality is demonstrable by any 1/2 decent high school student, and was debated for centuries before quantum mechanics provided a mutually inclusive solution. Quantum tunneling forms the basis of the electron microscope, radioactive decay, and more recently quantum semiconductors and computing devices.
--- End quote ---
I think you are missing the forest from the trees in my point. I'm sure much of quantum physics is heavily backed and heavily substantiated. I only pointed out that much isn't. Quantum physics has become a big, wide open term covering A LOT of ground. No need to "cred flash" or whip out big names because I know this already. My point has always been my problem with the theories that are not based on any real world data, but based on computer models or mathmatical simulations with pre-existing notions built into the model. If there is no applicable way to test the hypotheses outside of the model, then according to scientific method it should never be considered theory. Period. If there is no applicable way to experiment yet, too bad.
The core problem with models is that is falls into an assumption based logic pitfall. e.g.: If the cat eats poison, he will die. The cat died, therefore he must have had eaten poison. While there may be a number of reasons that the cat could have died, the parameters set up allows one to only see the solution already proposed.
SuprSprint:
--- Quote from: Vigo on September 26, 2011, 10:59:15 pm ---I am just stating that is one very specific theory substantiated and used time and time again, where quantum physics is a branch of Science.
--- End quote ---
And I am stating that your impression that gravitational theory is unshakable, while quantum theory is ever changing and unreliable is simply inaccurate. That may be your view from the outside where fragments of research are released as news articles, but that simply is not reality. For example; the experiment that started this thread raises questions about the validity of the theory of gravity.
--- Quote from: Vigo on September 26, 2011, 05:40:52 pm ---I'm sure much of quantum physics is heavily backed and heavily substantiated.
--- End quote ---
That differs quite a bit from your last post where you proclaimed; "much of which is so hypothetical that it has not been backed by any majority of the scientific community nor accepted as remotely provable to begin with."
--- Quote from: Vigo on September 26, 2011, 05:40:52 pm ---No need to "cred flash" or whip out big names because I know this already.
--- End quote ---
No disrespect intended, but your comments are typical someone with only a superficial knowledge of physics research. No one actually involved in the physics community would have ever tried to make an argument that quantum theory is; "not been backed by any majority of the scientific community nor accepted as remotely provable to begin with".
--- Quote from: Vigo on September 26, 2011, 05:40:52 pm ---My point has always been my problem with the theories that are not based on any real world data, but based on computer models or mathmatical simulations with pre-existing notions built into the model. If there is no applicable way to test the hypotheses outside of the model, then according to scientific method it should never be considered theory. Period. If there is no applicable way to experiment yet, too bad.
--- End quote ---
First, "not based on any real world data" is more hyperbole just like your previous statement. Furthermore, your assessment that there is "no applicable way to test" is indicative of what you don't know about the state of research. Devices like the LHC (the subject of this thread) are specifically constructed to delve into the inner workings of sub-atomic particles, and thus test the predictions of highly complex theories.
--- Quote from: Vigo on September 26, 2011, 05:40:52 pm ---The core problem with models is that is falls into an assumption based logic pitfall. e.g.: If the cat eats poison, he will die. The cat died, therefore he must have had eaten poison. While there may be a number of reasons that the cat could have died, the parameters set up allows one to only see the solution already proposed.
--- End quote ---
Grotesquely over-simplified, almost to the point of being a mockery of the process.
Because it is often impossible to directly validate a hypothesis at this level, real physics research typically doesn't test to see why the cat died, but rather why he didn't die. After many different researchers exclude thousands of other possibilities, the hypothesis that he died of poison is validated as a theory. And even after a theory is widely accepted as fact, it continues to be validated as it tenets are incorporated into other research, and that research yields the predicted responses. At any time if ONE of these thousands of tangential experiments produces anomalous results, re-evaluation of the theory begins.
FWIW, that is *exactly* what took place in the test that started this thread. An accredited research facility studying sub-atomic particles came up with a data set that appears to show that a 100 year old theory may be flawed. They weren't testing the speed of light. They were testing something entirely different that depends on general relativity, which in turn depends on the speed of light. And that how many of these theories that you have deemed "not based on any real world data" are tested. And they are tested time and time again, you just don't hear about it because it's buried in the details.
In any case, you've already made up your mind that quantum mechanics, the Easter bunny, and unicorn farts are all fiction. You are grossly mistaken about the first one, but I'm not going to waste any more time trying to change that...
EDIT: Scof's criticism noted and childish comment stricken. FWIW, "unicorn farts" was PinballJim's choice of words, not mine.
scofthe7seas:
See, you keep saying things like "No disrespect intended" but then you make snotty little comments like at the bottom regarding the Easter bunny and unicorn farts(?!?). I would ask if you knew how pretentious you were, but I'm positive you can't.
Nothing you have said has made my feelings on "theory" vs what is assumed as fact change. If anything, your ridiculous rants regarding everything ever being changeable and unproven backs up my statement. I'm not going to say I know everything ever (EVER! Apparently.) about physics. I'm willing to admit that (as I'm certain gives you a sense of satisfaction, a slight wiggle in your chair with a smirk). But I also know human nature. People like to believe they have "it" figured out. I'm willing to say we don't know. About a lot of things, and it annoys me that people like you can poop out reels of data "proving" your point, and in a year or two backpedal stating that we didn't know such and such at the time. Things exactly like the big bang theory, which for the longest time just = yes, and has been reverted to the status of = maybe? but was FERVENTLY insisted upon.
Like I said, I'm not going to get into a long and complicated discussion about these things, as I wouldn't know the half of it. But you know what? Neither do you.
You:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version