Theories and Proof - split from Quantum theory of gravity.

[QuantumT]

6 minutes ago, Amazing Random said:

It is verified experimentally. And from the definition of science if something is verified experimentally , it is true and theories must change and adapt to this truth.

Yes. Theories are interpretations of experimental/observational evidence. The experiment can't be wrong, but the interpretation can.
That is why theories are never proven.

Edited August 2, 2019 by QuantumT

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Yes. Theories are interpretations of experimental/observational evidence. The experiment can't be wrong, but the interpretation can.
That is why theories are never proven.

Nope, theories are never proven because of evidence, whereas hypothesis is showed to be theory/probable when there is. 

[QuantumT]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Nope, theories are never proven because of evidence, whereas hypothesis is showed to be theory/probable when there is. 

I fail to see the difference. We have the same opinion, but just different native languages, so we use slightly different sentese structures.

[swansont]

48 minutes ago, Amazing Random said:

QFT.If relativistic events didnt occur at the microscopic world , QFT would have been wrong.

Something with relativistic momentum bends space-time.

If it has enough relativistic momentum.:)

But that's not required. Good-old rest mass will warp spacetime.

Just now, QuantumT said:

I fail to see the difference. We have the same opinion, but just different native languages, so we use slightly different sentese structures.

Science tends toward using more precise definitions.

[QuantumT]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Science tends toward using more precise definitions.

I think I'm doing okay. It should be obvious what I mean.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, QuantumT said:

I think I'm doing okay. It should be obvious what I mean.

Nope...

4 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

I fail to see the difference.

and that's why you fail.

Evidence can only ever look back at our description's, right or wrong can't prove the decision; it can only guess the outcome...

[Curious layman]

8 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

. It should be obvious what I mean.

I'm not nitpicking but..... what if it's not obvious? Isn't that the point of being precise?

[QuantumT]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Nope...

and that's why you fail.

Evidence can only ever look back at our description's, right or wrong can't prove the decision; it can only guess the outcome...

1 minute ago, Curious layman said:

I'm not nitpicking but..... what if it's not obvious? Isn't that the point of being precise?

All right. I will try to do better in the future.

Here is what I've learned. Feel free to correct me:

Theory: Has plenty of experimental / observational evidence to support it.

Hypothesis: Has some experimental / observational evidence to support it.

Conjecture: Has mathematical evidence to support it.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

All right. I will try to do better in the future.

Here is what I've learned. Feel free to correct me:

Theory: Has plenty of experimental / observational evidence to support it.

Hypothesis: Has some experimental / observational evidence to support it.

Conjecture: Has mathematical evidence to support it.

Conjecture is the operative word, in that it is incomplete...

[QuantumT]

17 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Conjecture is the operative word, in that it is incomplete...

Good to know! Thanks!

In my language the word is (a mathematical) 'assumption'.

Edited August 2, 2019 by QuantumT

[Amazing Random]

6 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Are you talking about me?
Please address me directly, if you have any issues. I believe the above mentioned issue has been solved, but swansont just didn't catch up yet.

I am not trying to offend you , but all of the physicists in the world believe that QFT is correct . So either you are a genius or you are wrong .  Due to this conversation being too good to be stopped by something like this , I proposed the other participants to accept your theory.

9 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Are you talking about me?
Please address me directly, if you have any issues. I believe the above mentioned issue has been solved, but swansont just didn't catch up yet.

So we need to imagine the quantum world as relativistic-independent.

[QuantumT]

4 minutes ago, Amazing Random said:

I am not trying to offend you , but all of the physicists in the world believe that QFT is correct . So either you are a genius or you are wrong .

I never claimed that it is incorrect, I just said that it's not proven. It has plenty of evidence to support it, but it is just a theory (the T in QFT).

[Amazing Random]

2 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

I never claimed that it is incorrect, I just said that it's not proven. It has plenty of evidence to support it, but it is just a theory (the T in QFT).

 Yes but most people stick to the evidence.

[QuantumT]

1 minute ago, Amazing Random said:

 Yes but most people stick to the evidence.

As do I. But evidence is subject to interpretation. If you restrict it to a single interpretation, it becomes a dogma, and that is anti-science.

[Amazing Random]

9 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

As do I. But evidence is subject to interpretation. If you restrict it to a single interpretation, it becomes a dogma, and that is anti-science.

Hmmm

[StringJunky]

43 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

I never claimed that it is incorrect, I just said that it's not proven. It has plenty of evidence to support it, but it is just a theory (the T in QFT).

The T means it's generally accepted.

[QuantumT]

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The T means it's generally accepted.

Yes, "plenty of evidence" tends to cause that 

[swansont]

55 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

As do I. But evidence is subject to interpretation. If you restrict it to a single interpretation, it becomes a dogma, and that is anti-science.

If evidence supports two different models than you need to do a better experiment that eliminates one of them. "Interpretation" is the wrong word for this.

[QuantumT]

38 minutes ago, swansont said:

If evidence supports two different models than you need to do a better experiment that eliminates one of them. "Interpretation" is the wrong word for this.

I respectfully disagree. Because, what if new evidence surfaces, that favors the eliminated one?

All we can do is interpret the evidence we have right now, but we can never be absolutely sure.

[Phi for All]

27 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

I respectfully disagree. Because, what if new evidence surfaces, that favors the eliminated one?

Think about this. If a model is eliminated because a better experiment shows it's wrong, nothing new is going to surface. Science can prove something is wrong, but it can't prove something is right. If one model is eliminated in favor of a different model, it's because it was wrong. THAT is what the extra experiment showed.

New evidence can always surface, but once something is proven wrong, nothing can reverse that. How could it? My hypothesis that all swans are white gets proven wrong by a single instance of a black swan. What new evidence could reverse that? My new hypothesis, that all swans are white or black, no matter how much evidence I compile, will never be proof. It would remain, at most, a theory until all swans (ever) were accounted for. 

Also, you should NEVER say it's "just a theory". A theory is far better than an answer (have you read what some people consider to be "answers"?). Theory is as strong as it gets in science. It's a guarantee we'll always keep working on the problem, and not just assume we know an "answer". 

[QuantumT]

20 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Think about this. If a model is eliminated because a better experiment shows it's wrong, nothing new is going to surface. Science can prove something is wrong, but it can't prove something is right. If one model is eliminated in favor of a different model, it's because it was wrong. THAT is what the extra experiment showed.

New evidence can always surface, but once something is proven wrong, nothing can reverse that. How could it? My hypothesis that all swans are white gets proven wrong by a single instance of a black swan. What new evidence could reverse that? My new hypothesis, that all swans are white or black, no matter how much evidence I compile, will never be proof. It would remain a theory until all swans (ever) were accounted for. 

Also, you should NEVER say it's "just a theory". A theory is far better than an answer (have you read what some people consider to be "answers"?). Theory is as strong as it gets in science. It's a guarantee we'll always keep working on the problem, and not just assume we know an "answer".

Reality isn't black and white, and it is reality that we are trying to figure out.
How many experiments and observations has been used to confirm relativity? I'm quite sure it's more than two. Luckily they all agreed with the theory. Probably because it's correct.

But there are many theories, who are also not black and white, and who can be confirmed with many experiments. What if one of them has five experiments to validate it, and one that does not? Even an improved version still does not. Then we need to re-evaluate the theory, right?

 

PS. I hold the highest regard for our theories, but I must insist that they are just interpretations of smaller facts put together.

Edited August 2, 2019 by QuantumT

[Phi for All]

7 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

But there are many theories, who are also not black and white, and who can be confirmed with many experiments.

Can you list three?

[QuantumT]

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Can you list three?

Is that really necessary? This thread is split from a thread about quantum field theory (that's one), which is closely related to string theory (two) and M-theory (three), but all of them stems from quantum theory (four), and the issue is how we can combine one of them with general relativity (five), into a theory of everything (the jackpot!).

[Strange]

2 hours ago, QuantumT said:

I respectfully disagree. Because, what if new evidence surfaces, that favors the eliminated one?

All we can do is interpret the evidence we have right now, but we can never be absolutely sure.

I think it is important to note that theories are very rarely proved to be completely wrong. I can think of four, maybe five, examples. It is much more common for a theory to be superseded by another theory that is either more accurate or applies in a wider range of conditions. 

For example, I would not say that Newton's theory of gravity is "wrong". It is still widely used. It works for a great many common situations. But there are other situations where it is not accurate. So for the greatest accuracy, and particularly for extreme conditions, GR is better. 

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, QuantumT said:

I respectfully disagree. Because, what if new evidence surfaces, that favors the eliminated one?

All we can do is interpret the evidence we have right now, but we can never be absolutely sure.

The eliminated one has already been shown to be wrong, if theory does not match experiment. Why would you keep it?

40 minutes ago, Strange said:

I think it is important to note that theories are very rarely proved to be completely wrong. I can think of four, maybe five, examples. It is much more common for a theory to be superseded by another theory that is either more accurate or applies in a wider range of conditions. 

True but partly in a trivial sense. Completely wrong models tend to be discarded quite quickly (unless they are posted in speculations, seemingly). There has to be something that supports the idea, even if it’s accidental, as with phlogiston