Shubee

The opening post says: This is all a surprise to me. Why should you be mad at me for being clever enough to know how to formulate the untestable, far-reaching mathematical implications of quantum physics in my head? "It startled him even more when just after he was awarded the Galactic Institute's Prize for Extreme Cleverness he got lynched by a rampaging mob of respectable physicists who had finally realized that the one thing they really couldn't stand was a smart-ass." — The Inventor of the Infinite Improbability Drive, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1979).

That was one great, untestable, implied quantum physics theory, which answered the question. The second example I gave, which is another great, untestable, implied quantum physics theory, is thoroughly explained in post #22, dated today at 04:44 AM. I had already answered the question twice. What other bold statement did I make where I didn't answer a question? That's the beauty of it. I drew a picture.

What makes this discussion so interesting to me is the obvious disagreement between Klaynos and swansont on the fundamental meaning of science. swansont obviously exercised administrative and/or moderator privileges at this forum when he edited my opening post on page 1, thinking that my choice of the Arial font in size 3 was too loud. The edit there says that. To my opening question, which is a request for a definition of science in a quantum mechanical context, swansont kept asking me, "do you have any untestable implications of quantum physics in mind?" After then getting a definition of science from swansont and exploring its meaning, I then proved with absolute mathematical perfection that quantum creationism is science. The whole discussion thread was then quickly moved from Quantum Theory to another section of the forum called Pseudoscience and Speculations. Apparently, there exists a mathematically correct application of quantum theory that is pseudoscience and speculation after all. And apparently, according to some, even asking about the meaning of science is pseudoscience, it seems.

Let stick to physics. Of course it's possible. There is no limit to improbability in quantum theory.

So if a theory T is a related set of multiple physical propositions {P1, P2, P3, ... PN}, then T is testable and is therefore a scientific theory if there is just one part of the theory Pj that is testable? So you're saying that we really don't need to be able to create a state of universal nothingness to see if a universe can spontaneously pop itself into existence? You're saying that the entire big bang theory T is a scientific theory by virtue of just some of the Pj being confirmed empirically? Let's being with your definition of science. It follows then that quantum mechanics, together with all its untestable, far-reaching mathematical implications, is a scientific theory. Recall that the underpinnings of statistical thermodynamics is based on the collective motion of microscopic particles, which is governed by quantum mechanics: Quantum physics then is the fundamental physical law upon which all the laws of physical interactions and chemistry may be derived: Since the point I'm making exploits the fact that all the fundamental laws of physics are time-reversible, including quantum theory, let's ignore for the moment the imprecision of classical thermodynamics because, "From a [classical] thermodynamics perspective, all natural processes are irreversible." --Irreversibility. The truth is irreversibility is just a statistical property: What does this imply? Theoretically, a conceivable number of nuclear weapons strategically placed around the world could end all life on Earth almost simultaneously. If all the fundamental laws of physics are time-reversible, I believe it follows that it is mathematically possible for random atoms to rapidly assemble themselves into a great variety of living things in a single day. The probability of such an event happening is so infinitesimal that it is clearly untestable but it must be a scientific theory. It follows from the definition of science and the laws of physics. It would be a far-reaching mathematical consequence of quantum physics.

Please define testable. Here is where the professor says, "The universe can spontaneously create itself out of nothing." How can we test that popular pseudo-scientific belief without creating nothingness?

Thank you traveler; that's certainly a great, untestable, implied quantum physics theory.

There are interesting untestable mathematical implications of the equations of general relativity. For example, it is believed that matter that falls into a black hole will arrive at a spacetime singularity. It's impossible to test that, so is the belief in a singularity at the center of every black hole an example of physicists believing in a non-scientific theory?

Can you prove that? Please state a precise mathematical definition of unfalsifiable.

Does it matter? Suppose it can be argued logically that quantum mechanics necessarily implies a strange and untestable mathematical result. Should that unusual, far-reaching, untestable result be classified as a scientific theory?

Suppose we take the view that quantum physics is science. If we adjoin to quantum physics all of the untestable, far-reaching mathematical implications of quantum physics, would we still have a scientific theory? Shubee

Sure, but relativists and mathematicians have no problem conceptualizing the process.

With light signals. In 1904 Poincaré illustrated the procedure in the following way: A sends a signal at time 0 to B. B also sends a signal at time 0 to A. If in both cases the signals arrive at the same time t the clocks are synchronous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation

Einstein's special relativity begins with a global notion of how to synchronize clocks frame by frame for all frames of reference. It is clear that Einstein's special relativity has a clock assigned to each point in every frame of reference. To reset a clock simply means to add or subtract a fixed amount from the stated time. The recipe given by equation 54 of A Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation From a Simple Definition of Time and equations explains how to do that at every point for every velocity v. There is no law against resetting all clocks in all frames of reference according to the recipe given. Shubee

How does that answer the riddle? Aren't you saying that the Lorentz transformation is logically equivalent to the Galilean transformation if one is willing to do all the work necessary to bring about a conceptual equivalence?