[gecko]

there is nothing a scientist would like better than his theory proven correct with real testing.. to guess that a scientist came up with a radical theory, radical so that it just cant be tested, is insane. these arent con-men. thats what philosophers are for.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

Wether people come up with theories for the purpose of not being able to prove it, is pretty impossible to know. Im sure all dont, and Im sure some do. Regardless of if they are trying to con people, or not, may not even be the big issue. Because even with less than sinister intentions, people aim their conceptual searches at things that are untested, and most things that are untested are untested because the are untestable. Look at the world of quantum mechanics, protected by the most untestable theory of all time, the heisenberg uncertainty principle. They can say ANYTHING they want to and you can't test it because the heisenberg uncertainty principle says, testing changes the experiment.

[ukmicky]

quote:Look at the world of quantum mechanics, protected by the most untestable theory of all time, the heisenberg uncertainty principle. They can say ANYTHING they want to and you can't test it because the heisenberg uncertainty principle says, testing changes the experiment.

Possibly the worst example you could have chosen. Check out Quantum cryptography for proof of the uncertaincy priciple.

I think i spelt it right.[]

Michael

[thebrain13 (OP)]

How can you prove that something is untestable?

And even if you can prove that the heinenberg uncertainty principle is true, how does that make quantum mechanics theories any more testable?

[ukmicky]

ok no theory can be proved however it is testable through predictions. A theory it has to be able to predict things ,and unless you can come up with a theory which predicts things better then to challenge it is silly.

Michael

[gecko]

bringing up the uncertainty principle is really reaching. testing "changing" the experiment is the observer principle, not the uncertainty principle.

"In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle or just Uncertainty principle (sometimes also the Heisenberg indeterminacy principle - a name given to it by Niels Bohr) states that one cannot measure values (with arbitrary precision) of certain conjugate quantities, which are pairs of observables of a single elementary particle. These pairs include the position and momentum."

"However, Heisenberg showed that, EVEN IN THEORY WITH A HYPOTHETICAL INFINITELY PRECISE INSTRUMENT, no measurement could be made to arbitrary accuracy of both the position and the momentum of a physical object."

 this is not referring to the instrument interfering, just the impossibility to measure position and momentum at the same time.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

Oh, okay I see now. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle only says, you can't measure, Position and Momentum. And surely, experiments requiring momentum and position are quite rare. Oh wait, now that I think about it, EVERY experiment requires the measurement of position and momentum.

[gecko]

it says you cant measure them at the same time. even with an INFINITELY PRECISE INSTRUMENT. this is a fact. it has nothing to do with the instruments interfering with the experiment. you were wrong and now that you were wrong youre changing the argument.

NO ONE ever said that many experiments dont require the measurment of position and momentum.  you are now just taking this argument wherever you can to win it.

maybe you should try to understand these things before you have a knee-jerk reaction to them. i, like you, am a rationalist and wish that science was always about determinism. but quantum mechanics(with actual evidence to back it up, and most of it has) makes physics quite less determinable. i think its the most important advancement(yes, it is an advancement) in science in the last couple centuries

youre going out of your way to not understand these things and argue agaisnt them,  and youre looking like a fool.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

This is getting a little semantical. Your right, I said, testing changes the experiment, as a result of the heisenburg uncertainty principle, this is a false statement, the heisenberg uncertainty principle doesn't literally CHANGE the experiment through force, the observer effect does(which is often confused with the heisenberg uncertainty principle) but it does state that OBSERVING the experiment changes it. Or at least how I understand it is that observing momentum changes position and observing the position changes its momentum. Otherwise you could measure both of them. Both qualities are essential to understanding any experiment, so essentially the observer effect and the heisenberg uncertainty principle do the same thing. And thats not allow you to test an experiment with accuracy.

I dont go out of my way to not understand quantum mechanics, if that were true I wouldn't of bought books about it, and I certainly wouldn't of read them, although your right that I do get a knee jerk reaction when I read them, at least it isn't most peoples nieve reaction of, this has to be right, and I completely understand it. And at least I can take comfort in knowing Einstein shares my hate for quantum mechanics.

And, I dont think I have changed my argument much at all. I did start this post, and I titled it, where have all the scientists gone. And yes, I've changed this argument to, Why are all the scientists gone. I've changed it in that way, but I dont think thats what you were refering to, right?

One of the reasons I figured science is slowing, is peoples limited ability to test things, which unlike olden days, there are laws now, that say you can't, instead of people admitting they can't, due to technological limitations. And the heisenberg uncertainty principle is a cause for why, wether you believe it affects the experiment literally or not.

And quantum mechanics doesn't predict experiments, or at least not with any success, there are many documented predictions of quantum mechanics, and they almost always fail. All quantum mechanics does is explain them with the immense ambiguity, and pure quantity of its laws. And there is no damage to the credibility of the theorist because its written by a thousand of them. Which is another way you know quantum mechanics is bogus, there aren't a 1000 people with the ability to simply invent conceptual physics theory. People with that kind of ability are EXTREMELY RARE!!!

I could go on and on about quantum mechanics, but I think Im going to put that in a different post, because that would be one long post, and nobody will read down this far, in this post, anymore.

Finally, I could care less if you think I'm a fool, because people only think other people are fools due to the fact that they think differently then them. Which is another Humungous problem of physics.

[gecko]

what i meant by you "changing the argument" is first you said that heisenbergs principle interferes with the experiment, and i explained to you how thats not true. THEN you said "And surely, experiments requiring momentum and position are quite rare. Oh wait, now that I think about it, EVERY experiment requires the measurement of position and momentum." you had to state something of your own to deny. I, nor anyone else, ever said that most experiments dont require measurment of position and momentum. youre extrapolating things i never said.

the heisenberg principle DOES NOT state that observing the experiment changes it. this just isnt true. it states that position and momentum cannot be measured simultaneously, even with an infinitely precise instrument(not our senses). this is true and prooven. it is not just a fluke theory, like i agree with you, some quantum theory is.

just because einstein shared you view doesnt make it more credible. we could spend all day picking famous historical figures who would agree with us.

[daveshorts]

quote:Originally posted by thebrain13

what happened to all the great scientist? whats the biggest breakthrough since 1925?

There are several reasons for you not hearing about modern 'great scientists':
-The scientists of 1925 came up with a load of equations that seem to work, but to be honest we can't solve them mathematically a lot of the time, but when we can they work, so why would we need new ones?
-The conditions where they may not work are so difficult and expensive to achive, the research budgets don't really stretch there.
-There are hugely more scientists than there were 80 years ago, so discoveries tend to be the work of 50 people not just 3, so individuals don't stand out so much.
-People have already done all the easy, not so easy, and even quite hard stuff. Leaving only the bloody difficuly or obscure.
-It took about 40years for quantum mechanics to bed in properly, so

quote: how come nobody talks about logic and reason? why are all scientists obsessed with proving ridiculous equations and theories about events nobody has seen or have any evidence for? why is everybody trying to prove the universe has 26 dimensions and an infinite amount of possibilities and probabilities, how about trying to create something with practical applications not theories that are deamed practical because proving them is impractical. When will somebody say stop, thats nonsense!!

There are probably hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, probably a few tens of thousand physicists, and a maybe a few thousand theoretical physacists in the world. 90% of whom are looking at the theory of difficult but useful systems. Eg one of my friends is investigating how cracks propagate in silicon, which could be important in developing new materials at some point in the future. Maybe the other couple of hundred physicists are looking at stupid things, but maybe one of them isn't stupid. Only about 110 years ago there was a big arguement about whether atoms exist, and even if they do whether there was there any point in looking at them, as you were  never going to be able to see them.

Most of the reason you only hear about the crazy ideas, is that 'universe is actually part of a 16 dimentional hyper-cow' is a much better headline than 'physicist develops a good model of how silicon breaks'.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

I was only implying that EVERY EXPERIMENT requires the measurement of BOTH postion and momentum. To say you can't measure those quantities is to say you can't measure any experiment. Regardless of if the heisenberg uncertainty principle, changes the experiment or not. Which it would have to, otherwise you could measure both.

[gecko]

ok. youre exactly right that thats what it means. however, its prooven. so are we supposed to assume certainty when certainty is impossible? that would be to deny a true principle, and opposite of your determinism.

the heisenberg uncertainty principle exists. do you want scientists to ignore it, and just have bogus position and momentum measurements? how far would that push science forward? for the last time it does not CHANGE the experiment.

 the principle is not as far reaching as you seem to think it is. it works on an elemental level. there is uncertainty measuring the position and momentum of atoms, and thats very important when doing so. there is also uncertainty measuring a trains position and momentum, but its so minute its practically negated. the principle does not just deny all experiments. if you do regular physics work on a macro-level its really not important to consider.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

How can you prove that you cant prove something? And quantum mechanics is the study of physics on a micro-level. Hence quantum mechanics can't be proven, just speculated about. So why thats all physicists work on now, is beyond me...........(actually it isnt).... ):

And I know you said this is the last time your going to say the uncertainty principle doesn't change the experiment, but if thats so, why cant you measure BOTH position and momentum?

[ukmicky]

Of course quantum mechanics can be tested.

I can’t prove that electrons exist because their to small and i cant see them ,However i have a theory that if you put your finger in a plug socket I will be able to prove their existance beyond all reasonable doubt. Just because you can’t see something doesn’t mean its existence or behaviour can’t be tested and experimented upon

A scientific theory may not be able tot prove nothing 100 % but for it to be classed as a theory it has to be accompanied by lots of testable evidence and has to have been independently tested and scrutinised many times using the predictions which the theory has to be able to accurately give for any experiments under the domain of the theory. If any one experiment shows its predictions to be inaccurate or if any other new theory comes along which has better predictions using different means then its goodbye to that theory.

And if all experimental data accurately mirrors the predictions of the theory only a
Fool would challenge it.



Michael

[thebrain13 (OP)]

The motion of electrons on a large scale(electricity) is perfectly understood without quantum mechanics claims.

Your statement, if any one experiment finds predictions to be inaccurate, or if any other theory comes along, which has better predictions using different means, then its goodbye to the theory is not true. I wish that were so, and its certainly the way it ought to be, thats how it was done in the olden days. But your highly naive if you think that you can ever disprove quantum mechanics with a better theory. Its rarely goodbye to theory time, in the quantum world, but its simply, reinterpretation of theory time. And you can always do that given how vague their laws are. You can predict anything you want to, using quantum mechanics. Whenever there is a new experiment, quantum mechanics always lays claim, that in fact, Quantum theory predicts that, but they never ever explain an experiment BEFORE its conducted. At least not with success that is.

[daveshorts]

Urrr NO electricity is by no means explained without QM. You can explain all the simple stuff you learn at school without it, but try and explain how a transistor works, LEDs, the quantum hall effect, let alone superconductivity with classical physics and you will have problems!!!!

To say that QM has never predicted anything before it was discovered shows a distinct lack of research. Look up the Josephson effect. This is a property of certain superconducting systems that was predicted in the appendix of Josephson's PhD, and was found to exist a few years later. It is now used to produce very sensitive magnetic detectors called SQUIDs amongst other things.

[rosy]

As a chemist, can I just jump up and down a few times, wave my arms and scream SPECTROSCOPY  ?

The dependence of spectroscopy on the quantisation of atomic and molecular electron energy levels is pretty difficult to argue with, but I don't have time this week to explain the details so if anyone's interested they'll have to google it.

I don't much care about the formal physics, but it sure as hell isn't going to be explicable in terms of classical behaviour, and QM works very well. And predictively.

[thebrain13 (OP)]

you can explain anything with qm, wether its been proven right or wrong, so its always a success in explaing already been done experiments. Find its successes when attempting to explain a never before seen phenomena, and then compare that to how many times its failed. And the failures will truely be overwhelming.

[rosy]

Quote some instances, please.
With enough information for it to be apparent that they really do support your claims.