Lobstrosity

Your understanding of quantum mechanics is lacking. It has been demonstrated that Einstein's locality principle (i.e. particles have definite attributes independed of whether they are measured or not) is faulty. This was empirically demonstrated by violation of Bell's Inequalities. I know I've posted this before, but it was months ago and the search feature isn't working for me here, so I'll post it again. From A Modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics by John Townsend:

Though the experiments conducted used polarization states of pairs of photons, the physics is isomorphic with that of momentum-position uncertainty. Experimental verification of Bell inequality violations in the spin regime also serve to verify the notion that there will be an intrinsic quantum uncertainty between any two non-commuting observables. It is important to remember that this uncertainty is fundamental, it is not due to the fact that we simply lack the technology to make more precise measurements.

Corona688

You wished to give the impression that scientists are ignoring evidence that doesn't support their theory. They are not, they're simply waiting for the evidence to be substantiated.What they're worried about is that they already HAVE a theory that seems to work very nicely, that they've put a helluva lot of work into. You can't expect them to be happy about giving it up, especially when it's worked so well.Frankly, reality doesn't much care who gets science grants and who doesn't. Science isn't INVENTING reality, guy, it's just investigating it.My guess is, it's a figure of speech. Suppose I assign an arbitrary quality, 'spleekness', to everything in existence. This quantity can't be measured by any rational means. Position and velocity may be similarly artificial concepts on the quantum scale. Same result. The concept of an omnipotent deity is irrational simply because it's impossible to support or deny.. That's the whole point I'm trying to get across - science does not use the concept of god because the concept is intrinsically useless.

Peter Soderqvist

Bell's experiments in the 60s, and Aspects experiment in the 80s have unambiguously ruled out Einstein's local hidden variable hypothesis. We have to make our choice between reality as defined as "the universe exists independently of any observer", or locality defined as no signal can travel faster than light?
I have read an interview with John Bell, and Alain Aspect in Paul Davies book, The Ghost in the Atom! Bell doesn’t select between these, but prefer reality there faster than light signaling propagates through the ether, because this will give us less problem than the other alternative! But I admit locality in space-time, and reject reality in the quantum world, and consider that quantum objects can be non-locally interconnected, just as they where one, they influence each other Instantly without exchanging signals, this phenomenon is known as quantum entanglement!

However, Bohm' s non-local hidden variable interpretation is not ruled out, but later Experiments than these has been made in order to pin down the electrons momentum and position in a box, but the electron begins to bounces like crazy more, and more as the space decreases. That confirms that Heisenberg 's principle of uncertainty is intrinsic in the quantum world, as linked to earlier here by me to Brian Greene the Super String Expert. This "quantum claustrophobia" by the electron rises problems for realistic theories, I mean that how do you reconciles that weirdness with realistic theories?

Shadowy Man

It attracts money.

yguy

No, I wished to point out their unconscious bias, and that science it not immune to stultification by dogma.

Why wouldn't they be happy to see where they went wrong? Is it the truth they're looking for, or justification for their efforts? If the first is inimical to the second, which will prevail?

You're deliberately missing the point. Reality doesn't care, but scientists sure as hell do.

That means nothing?

Pretty week parallel, considering that position and momentum are not arbitrary qualities.

Hey - guess it depends on what you're after, doesn't it? If the idea is to understand reality exclusive of supernatural considerations, you are obviously correct.

yguy

Well doggone it, I guess I have to give you credit for being a good sport, at least.

Wyz_sub10

Entertaining is good, but we strive to keep the upper forms (and really, all of the board) civil and respectful.

It's expected that ideas will be attacked, but insulting an individual poster is never allowed. The warning was just that, and while you are free to be as anal retentive as you like, posters are expected to comply with the rules of the board.

If you simply want to berate each other for amusement, please feel free to do so privately.

Wyz_sub10,
S&S Moderator

Corona688

*sigh* When have I ever claimed that the people involved in scientific study are perfect? Of COURSE they have a vested interest in their own research. I think you're missing something...

This new evidence that has the potential to cast doubt on the existing Standard Model, was recorded by - (drumroll please) - SCIENTISTS! You think science is an exclusive club for those that tout the party line? The requirements for research papers are simply that you back up your theories with robust data. In case you haven't noticed, they are human beings. Think about it. You're also missing the point. There isn't by definition a standard party line that scientists have to adhere to. Guess what? Not all of them agree with the standard model on all points! It is so widely accepted simply because it is a very robust theory that does a better job of predicting reality than anything else we have right now. If you want to ditch the standard model, you'll have to do research and find something better. And guess what? That's apparently what some of them are doing. Research. Duh. I remind you that you're looking at a news item, not a scientific paper. Calling something a 'sexy theory' is simply a bit of grandstanding and dumbing-down for the cameras. You're thinking that classical newtonian mechanics hold down to the quantum level; but I think newtownian mechanics is an emergent property, not an implicit one. I'm not certain on this point, however; there are others on this forum far better equipped to deal with this question than I. Aaaaaaaaargh! You're not listening. Maybye an example will show my train of thought in simpler light...

Suppose I assert that a god is the direct cause of all random quantum effects. Fine.

But by defining god as the cause for reality then pointing to reality as a proof I are using an invalid argument... The form itself is valid 'if P then Q', but you're affirming Q instead of P; it's like saying 'if it's raining, there are clouds. There are clouds. Therefore, it's raining." That not an argument, that's just guessing. As you admitted earlier, a 'goddidit' explanation means the same thing as 'I don't know'. I'd much rather say 'I don't know'.

Additionally, god, being an agent rather than a process, cannot be used as a predictor of anything.. goals and plans that are utterly opaque to us mean that he can act without any visible rhyme or reason if he so chooses. he's not even part of the rules, he's OUTSIDE of them, and could change them on a whim whenever he wants. Sure, he seemingly hasn't. But it's assumed he COULD. How can you even try and build a theory around something that doesn't have to obey any rules at all?

Quite simply, you can't. Reason and an omnipotent god are not compatible concepts, and will never be no matter how hard you try and shoehorn him in.

Kimpatsu

But every good comedian needs an audience!

Wyz_sub10

Maybe the third word of your sentence indicates the problem.

In the meantime...

Freethought Humor, Jokes, Etc.