Are All of The Mathematical Implications of Quantum Physics Science?

[Shubee]

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

Edited September 26, 2008 by swansont
turned volume down

[iNow]

Huh? Quantum Physics IS science.

[swansont]

What untestable implications do you have in mind?

[Shubee]

What untestable implications do you have in mind?

 

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?

[ydoaPs]

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?

 

If it is untestable, then it is unfalsifiable, and thus not science by definition. Are there "strange and untestable mathematical" results necessarily implied by quantum mechanics? If so, what?

[Klaynos]

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?

 

What untestable result of QM?

 

QM is one of the most tested theories in the history of science...

 

Many modern devices rely on it....

[iNow]

He's been arguing in favor of creationism on another forum using the "everything is possible" and hence everything "suddenly life popped into existence" (il)logic.

[Shubee]

If it is untestable, then it is unfalsifiable

 

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

[nitric]

Huh? Quantum Physics IS science.

______________

iNow

any hypothesis that can be tested is science

[ydoaPs]

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

 

In order for something to be falsified, it must be able to be tested. It's a true statement by definition and as such does not necessitate proof. Now, if you would be so kind, please answer my questions.

[Shubee]

In order for something to be falsified, it must be able to be tested.

 

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?

[Klaynos]

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?

 

Singularities imply a breakdown of a theory, they're infinities, which are not liked by physicists, it implies that GR is a incomplete theory.

[swansont]

Singularities imply a breakdown of a theory, they're infinities, which are not liked by physicists, it implies that GR is a incomplete theory.

 

And, to clarify this, it means the theory doesn't hold at r=0. No need to test a theory where one doesn't claim it to be valid.

 

I'll ask again, do you have any untestable implications of quantum physics in mind?

[traveler]

Two words,

 

Big Bang

 

Need I say more?

[Shubee]

Two words,

 

Big Bang

 

Need I say more?

 

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

[npts2020]

Why is the "big bang" untestable? One does not need to recreate the earth to test the forces that act in its development. In fact I thought that was what the Large Hadron Collider was all about. The test for the "big bang" is to look to see if the universe is behaving today in the manner the theory predicts it should.

[Klaynos]

The big bang is testable.

 

The singularity that drops out of it is NOT testable, this is one of those breakdowns we were talking about were the theory does not hold and we know that.

 

BBT is NOT a consequence of quantum mechanics though.

 

So please answer Swansont's question.

[Royston]

Need I say more?

 

Well yes, considering this thread is questioning the validity of QM, at least I think that's what the OP is suggesting, and that the big bang is a consequence of astronomy and cosmology, then you need to explain why you brought this up.

 

The only point QM comes into play is when we're dealing with singularities in this instance, but this area of physics is way beyond my scope. However, this certainly doesn't retract from the observations and predictions that the universe was once much denser.

 

I personally don't follow the first post, it stinks of a lack of understanding of QM.

[Shubee]

The big bang is testable.

 

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?

[swansont]

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?

 

Testable means one can devise experiments that can be confirmed, or not. The theory must make predictions for this to be the case. The background radiation is an example of one of those predictions that was confirmed.

 

I think Hawking was referring to the Hawking-Turok Instanton Theory. I'm not a cosmologist; I don't know what predictions it makes and how they could be confirmed. "Popular pseudo-scientific belief," however, would not be an accurate description.

 

You started this thread asking about quantum theory. I'll ask one last time, do you have any untestable implications of quantum physics in mind? (Related to this, please review the forum rules, especially rule 2.5)

[foodchain]

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

 

 

The aspect of QM you are talking about I think actually falls into the interpretations category in which if you want science has already I think as a community if not really for individuals directly involved in such have as I already have pointed out keep such with the label interpretation. See QM has I don’t know about a half dozen or more alive interpretations all with differing aspects which are little more they hypothetical builds really onto the existing theory. QM itself though in regards to mathematical apparatus has been and continues to be tested by very precise means and methods empirically which produces nothing but results that agree with it. Most everything in physics is based ultimately on math, so I don’t know how you can say this particular physics theory based on math is any better then another theory that is tested highly which is also based on math, I also do not think anyone who has influence on the issue such as people working at the LHC state that our current physics is the end all of required understanding…

[Shubee]

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?

 

Testable means one can devise experiments that can be confirmed, or not. The theory must make predictions for this to be the case.

 

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?

 

You started this thread asking about quantum theory. I'll ask one last time, do you have any untestable implications of quantum physics in mind?

 

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:

 

In physics, thermodynamics (from the Greek θερμη, therme, meaning "heat" and δυναμις, dynamis, meaning "power") is the study of the transformation of energy into different forms and its relation to macroscopic variables such as temperature, pressure, and volume. Its underpinnings, based upon statistical predictions of the collective motion of particles from their microscopic behavior, is the field of statistical thermodynamics, a branch of statistical mechanics. -- Thermodynamics.

 

Quantum physics then is the fundamental physical law upon which all the laws of physical interactions and chemistry may be derived:

 

Essentially, statistical thermodynamics is an approach to thermodynamics situated upon statistical mechanics, which focuses on the derivation of macroscopic results from first principles. ... The statistical approach is to derive all macroscopic properties (temperature, volume, pressure, energy, entropy, etc.) from the properties of moving constituent particles and the interactions between them (including quantum phenomena). --Thermodynamics.

 

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:

 

Thermodynamics defines the statistical behaviour of large numbers of entities, whose exact behavior is given by more specific laws. Since the fundamental laws of physics are all time-reversible, it can be argued that the irreversibility of thermodynamics must be statistical in nature, that is, that it must be merely highly unlikely, but not impossible, that a system will lower in entropy. --Irreversibility.

 

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.

Edited September 28, 2008 by Shubee
for clarity

[npts2020]

I fail to see upon what you base the "belief" that the nuclear scenario you suggest is possible under any circumstance. I can also believe that a golden dragon will appear if I think about it hard enough but that does not make it a possibility worth considering for others. Now if I suggest a plausible mechanism for my dragon to appear (and can explain why it has never happened in the past) it then begins to become science. If you wish to say that one of the most studied areas of science is wrong, you have to have a better explanation than the current one or at least show very good proof that the thousnds of other people who devoted their life to this study, somehow were mistaken. IMO the real problem with your thinking is that you are a linear being (i.e. live your life in a unidirectional manner with respect to time.....born and die) and cannot concieve of a universe that may not be.

[traveler]

...and all the particles to make up a watch could never assemble to become a watch, right?

 

A watch is a reality, regardless of how it happened, it happened.

 

Evolution created a watch.

[Shubee]

...and all the particles to make up a watch could never assemble to become a watch, right?

 

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