Are All of The Mathematical Implications of Quantum Physics Science?

[Klaynos]

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.

 

Lets not.

 

It's your OP which we're here to discuse, so answer the question swansont put to you.

 

I strongly suggest before you start saying things like what you've said above about BBT, you should look at the predictions and observations that have been made using it, it is not simply a case of saying well if everything popped into being then there should be CMBRm it makes precise and accurate predictions of the timeline from the big bang until now, and currently it with expansion theory make teh BEST model of the observable universe that we have.

[Shubee]

Let's being with your definition of science.

 

Lets not.

 

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.

[Klaynos]

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.

 

You did? Hrmmm how odd... I don't see any maths...

 

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.

 

I moved your thread. The reasons for this is you made a bold statement and when asked to clarify this you avoid the question repeatedly.

 

Please answer swansonts question.

 

There is every chance that if you stick to the scientific method as required by the rules of the forum your thread might get moved back into physics.

[foodchain]

think I can understand where you are coming from somewhat though I am a complete laymen of QM. As far as I know I think an instaton is a product of say a quantum vacuum, or metastable in a quantum vacuum. Beyond this I think a big push if I am not behind the times is trying to relate concepts like zero point energy and thermodynamics into some empirical understanding that matches what we see in regards to expansion of the universe.

 

I think also at as close as we can get to absolute zero effects like quantum tunneling still persist, so I have no idea what that means.

 

In regards to origin of life which you brought up I again think QM can be useful. In relation to such I like decoherence and einselection really more then any other directions people have taken QM. Now I don’t really grasp a harmonic oscillator now do I fully grasp thermodynamics but if a system is by natural forces, laws, etc, as a constant moves towards equilibrium my quantum leap is to suggest that primordial life is a product of this, as such it was a chemical formation that favored moving the system towards equilibrium. That in regards to geologic cycles on the earth the environment or the composition of such in regards to say carbon or water in time came to form say primordial life really as something that moved such towards equilibrium.

 

I think decoherence and einselection become useful here in regards to trying to deduce how such a chemical reaction or series or constant state of such would come about in regards to say thermodynamics or how energy behaves in regards to matter as it pertains to a system moving towards equilibrium.

 

Though overall beyond QM I think the biggest question in my mind is if conservation of energy will always truly hold. Simply put if that is the case then you deal with something infinite truly, being it can never be destroyed.

[Shubee]

What untestable implications do you have in mind?

 

What untestable result of QM?

 

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

 

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?

 

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

 

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 moved your thread. The reasons for this is you made a bold statement and when asked to clarify this you avoid the question repeatedly.

 

I had already answered the question twice. What other bold statement did I make where I didn't answer a question?

 

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.

 

You did? Hrmmm how odd... I don't see any maths...

 

That's the beauty of it. I drew a picture.

Edited September 28, 2008 by Shubee
for clarity

[Klaynos]

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. What other bold statement did I make where I didn't answer a question?

 

No you have not, you have not addressed the question at all but avoided it, we're looking for specific results of QM here not some handwaiving avoiding of the question.

[Shubee]

We're looking for specific results of QM here not some handwaiving avoiding of the question.

 

The opening post says:

 

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?

 

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).

[Klaynos]

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?

 

That is shockingly vague and effectively meaningless... And impossible to comment on...

 

It's like making a prediction along the lines of "It will rain" it is useless... "It will read in newcastle tomorrow afternoon" is actually testable and specific...

[swansont]

What makes this discussion so interesting to me is the obvious disagreement between Klaynos and swansont on the fundamental meaning of science.

 

What definition of "obvious" are you using here?

 

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.

 

Yes, I did. There is no legitimate reason to use a large font for an entire post. It, along with ALLCAPS is considered rude — tantamount to shouting.

 

 

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?"

 

I asked for context, because your question was too open-ended without it. I feared you might tread into some nonsense. Silly me.

 

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.

 

Ok, given that context, the answer is no. Parts of a theory that are not testable are not scientific. That's why, for example, people are working on ways to get around singularities that pop up in theories. The theory fails to hold under those conditions.

 

However, the "random assembly" hypothesis is testable. You could test it on a smaller scale and see if it holds.

 

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?

 

No, that wasn't what I was saying. Perhaps that's part of your confusion.

 

You haven't really defined what you mean by a proposition (I'll be very disappointed if any equivocation appears later on) but either the proposition has to be testable or it has to depend on another one that's testable. If it's independent then it can be tossed from the theory, so there's no reason to include it if it isn't somehow testable.

 

 

I'm still not seeing where you have discussed untestable predictions of quantum theory, as you stated in your first post. You can either do that and continue discussion, or not and the thread will be locked. Trolling is a behavior that grows tiresome.

Edited September 29, 2008 by swansont
multiple post merged