ajb Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 I disagree what you said above, and insist that quantum theory lacks some scientific foundation. I don't think you can dismiss the fact that quantum theory has been shown to agree well with nature over and over again. This is despite any philosophical disagreement or trouble with interpretations: quantum mechanics where is it expected to apply well has yet to fail. You need to point to some experimental evidence that quantum mechanics is not working.
swansont Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 I disagree what you said above, and insist that quantum theory lacks some scientific foundation. That's not what I said, though. I said the theory matches experiment really well. If you disagree, you need to point to some part of the theory that's not supported by experiment.
Jeremy0922 Posted August 19, 2014 Author Posted August 19, 2014 (edited) I don't think you can dismiss the fact that quantum theory has been shown to agree well with nature over and over again. This is despite any philosophical disagreement or trouble with interpretations: quantum mechanics where is it expected to apply well has yet to fail. You need to point to some experimental evidence that quantum mechanics is not working. By the solutions and consequences of Schrödinger equation (and E=hv), the prolems of atomic, molecular, and solid-state structures and spectrums could be solved. As my works shown Schrödinger equation and E=hv could be deduced by classical theory. So, I suggest: Matter wave, quantum which are unnecessary conceptions and come a lot of contradictions, could be discarded. That's not what I said, though. I said the theory matches experiment really well. If you disagree, you need to point to some part of the theory that's not supported by experiment. see above Edited August 19, 2014 by Jeremy0922
swansont Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 By the solutions and consequences of Schrödinger equation (and E=hv), the prolems of atomic, molecular, and solid-state structures and spectrums could be solved. As my works shown Schrödinger equation and E=hv could be deduced by classical theory. So, I suggest: Matter wave, quantum which are unnecessary conceptions and come a lot of contradictions, could be discarded. see above So let's have your classically-backed model of the hydrogen atom.
Jeremy0922 Posted August 20, 2014 Author Posted August 20, 2014 So let's have your classically-backed model of the hydrogen atom. A scientific theory or model about nature must obey scientific rules,such as logic, causality, and could completely not partially be confirmed by the facts. If a theory which is even the current mainstream thinking violate these rules, we should question its correctness and scientificalness. And I believe we will eventually prove that is wrong and will abandone it.
Jeremy0922 Posted October 15, 2014 Author Posted October 15, 2014 How big will this effect be on whatever you're measuring? It is a problem about logic, but not an error. So the answer only is yes or no.
swansont Posted October 15, 2014 Posted October 15, 2014 It is a problem about logic, but not an error. So the answer only is yes or no. No, it's not. If the effect is small compared to other effects, and especially if it happens to be below the resolution of measurement, it can be ignored. Science is about making models that agree with how nature behaves. You always have to compare to experiment — if it disagrees, the model is wrong. It never ends at just logic; your logic can be good but if the premise is flawed the conclusion isn't valid. Comparison with empirical results is how you check your work. Since the results of the accepted model do agree with experiment, any perturbation to it that has not been included in the model is too small to currently matter. Abandoning the model will only happen if it stops agreeing with experiment or a better model comes along.
Jeremy0922 Posted October 15, 2014 Author Posted October 15, 2014 No, it's not. If the effect is small compared to other effects, and especially if it happens to be below the resolution of measurement, it can be ignored. Science is about making models that agree with how nature behaves. You always have to compare to experiment — if it disagrees, the model is wrong. It never ends at just logic; your logic can be good but if the premise is flawed the conclusion isn't valid. Comparison with empirical results is how you check your work. Since the results of the accepted model do agree with experiment, any perturbation to it that has not been included in the model is too small to currently matter. Abandoning the model will only happen if it stops agreeing with experiment or a better model comes along. We are discussing the logic relationship between the experimental data and the hydrogen atom model of quantum theory. Your answer is about resolution of measurement, and is an other question.
swansont Posted October 15, 2014 Posted October 15, 2014 We are discussing the logic relationship between the experimental data and the hydrogen atom model of quantum theory. Your answer is about resolution of measurement, and is an other question. I'm trying to discuss science. You appear to be claiming that the accepted model is wrong, and the only way to do that is by comparing the model to experiment. The accepted model does not include the gravitational attraction of the electron and the nucleus, either, because we know how small it is — it can be safely ignored. For your claim to have merit you have to show the effect exists AND it is large enough to make a difference.
Strange Posted October 15, 2014 Posted October 15, 2014 We are discussing the logic relationship between the experimental data and the hydrogen atom model of quantum theory. There is no "logic relationship" - there is only the predictions of theory versus the measurements. You have no predictions (other than "it is yes or no", which is not very helpful) therefore your comments are not useful. Not even science, in fact.
Jeremy0922 Posted October 15, 2014 Author Posted October 15, 2014 There is no "logic relationship" - there is only the predictions of theory versus the measurements. You have no predictions (other than "it is yes or no", which is not very helpful) therefore your comments are not useful. Not even science, in fact. You think logic relationship between experiment and theory is unnecessary!
imatfaal Posted October 15, 2014 Posted October 15, 2014 You think logic relationship between experiment and theory is unnecessary! It would be necessary if science was the quest for an ultimate truth - but science is an empirical investigation through models, predictions, and experiments. Nature is under no compunction to agree with my arrogant monkey logic - but if I am "doing science" then I am compelled to take empirical evidence as the only yardstick of truth. The logical beauty of a scientific theory is of no use whatsoever and can be positively dangerous - we only need to look back at classical Greece to see this. Maths, logic, philosophy were at an amazing (local) peak but whole swathes of observational science were at a standstill because logical beauty trumped observation. This continued for hundreds of years; medicine, biology, astronomy and most disciplines in Europe laboured through to the Renaissance with easily disproved theories which were both ancient and logically necessary but hugely wrong. We adhered to these ideas for the same reason as you are failing - it is all too human to believe there must be an accessible base narrative which explains everything in a logically sound, mutually non-contradictory, and pleasing manner. But firstly we have no reason whatsoever to think nature functions in such a manner, we can probably never understand at such a basic level, and finally we only have observation with which we can honestly probe nature
swansont Posted October 15, 2014 Posted October 15, 2014 You think logic relationship between experiment and theory is unnecessary! To the extent that it is necessary it is also insufficient. No theory stands solely on the logic used to develop it. Geocentrism was logical. Phlogiston was logical. The plum pudding model of the atom was logical. But both those and countless others failed because they did not match up with observation; all were ultimately shown to be founded on a false premise.
MigL Posted October 15, 2014 Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) Somebody trying to re-invent the wheel here ? On the one hand we have a mechanism that works extremely well, but since Jeremy0922 can't see the 'logic' of something round going in a straight line, we should replace it. Replace it with what, we ask. Well, Jeremy0922 has got nothing. Yup, we'll start burning all Quantum Physics books right away ! ( Dripping sarcasm all over the place ) Edited October 15, 2014 by MigL
Jeremy0922 Posted October 15, 2014 Author Posted October 15, 2014 To the extent that it is necessary it is also insufficient. No theory stands solely on the logic used to develop it. Geocentrism was logical. Phlogiston was logical. The plum pudding model of the atom was logical. But both those and countless others failed because they did not match up with observation; all were ultimately shown to be founded on a false premise. However, we are discussing now is a fundamental scientific questions. That is the transformation relationship between theory and experimental coordinate systems. If the transformation relation can not be determined, the experimental data could not be applied to prove the theory. Somebody trying to re-invent the wheel here ? On the one hand we have a mechanism that works extremely well, but since Jeremy0922 can't see the 'logic' of something round going in a straight line, we should replace it. Replace it with what, we ask. Well, Jeremy0922 has got nothing. Yup, we'll start burning all Quantum Physics books right away ! ( Dripping sarcasm all over the place ) Your words is helpless to solve the question, isn't it?
swansont Posted October 15, 2014 Posted October 15, 2014 However, we are discussing now is a fundamental scientific questions. That is the transformation relationship between theory and experimental coordinate systems. If the transformation relation can not be determined, the experimental data could not be applied to prove the theory. We ignore it and the model gives the right answer. Which is perfectly consistent with any effect from this being negligible. What you would need to do, and thus far have not done, is show that the effect is not negligible. Without that, all you're doing is saying we're not accounting for an effect that's too small to measure. Physics does that all the time. We're famous for it. Do you have any science to discuss?
davidivad Posted October 15, 2014 Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) please compare your work along side of traditional methods. i would also like to see why you need it ( what makes it useful). sometimes it is all about presentation... Edited October 15, 2014 by davidivad
Strange Posted October 15, 2014 Posted October 15, 2014 You think logic relationship between experiment and theory is unnecessary! The theory IS the relationship: the theory says what results to expect from the experiment. Either the experiment matches the experiment or it doesn't. If it doesn't you modify or discard the theory. I don't even understand what you are looking for. (Except, perhaps, that you want the theory to make sense to your intuition.)
Jeremy0922 Posted October 15, 2014 Author Posted October 15, 2014 We ignore it and the model gives the right answer. Which is perfectly consistent with any effect from this being negligible. You should not ignore it, because that is wrong action. Schrodinger equation could give some right answer, but matter wave is wrong conception.
swansont Posted October 15, 2014 Posted October 15, 2014 The theory IS the relationship: the theory says what results to expect from the experiment. Either the experiment matches the experiment or it doesn't. If it doesn't you modify or discard the theory. I don't even understand what you are looking for. (Except, perhaps, that you want the theory to make sense to your intuition.) And it's important to recognize that logic and intuition are not the same thing. There is nothing illogical about quantum physics, even though it may not be intuitive. You should not ignore it, because that is wrong action. Schrodinger equation could give some right answer, but matter wave is wrong conception. Empty claim. You need to actually SHOW that it is wrong.
studiot Posted October 15, 2014 Posted October 15, 2014 Jeremy 0922 A scientific theory or model about nature must obey scientific rules,such as logic, causality, and could completely not partially be confirmed by the facts Well that is not the way we learn, teach or practice Science from an early level. Take for instance the typical highschool maths questions 'A mass M is suspended from a light inextensible string...............' A rigid rod of length l supports two blocks....' 'A frictionless pulley.....' Yet these methods yield reproducible results adequate for many purposes. People every day bet their lives on calculations known to be inaccurate or based on known false assumptions because observation (experience) has shown that those calculations are adequate for purpose. Sometimes we have results without explanation and scientific theories are offered a conceivable explanations, such as the reversing magnetic fields of Earth, but we do not rely on them because they also predict effects we do not observe. Sometimes we have theories that offer apparantly good explanations and the authors of better ones struggle against the establishment to promote them, (isotasy v plate techtonics for instance), but usually further observations come to light which weed out the inadequate. These days we seek corroboration or exception more actively than ever, because we are aware of this. But we should always be wary of specifying how any theory 'should be' . I said 'adequate through experience' above this is a process that gives us increasing confidence in a theory as we make more and more observations that agree with its predictions, but fail to find exceptions. This is the case with Quantum Mechanics, And I commend it to the House.
Jeremy0922 Posted October 15, 2014 Author Posted October 15, 2014 please compare your work along side of traditional methods. i would also like to see why you need it ( what makes it useful). sometimes it is all about presentation... Please see my paper:http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=attachment&filename=GED-Luo.pdf&id=55724 Empty claim. You need to actually SHOW that it is wrong. because the theoritical coordinates is not the experimental coordinates
Strange Posted October 15, 2014 Posted October 15, 2014 because the theoritical coordinates is not the experimental coordinates No, not explain why you think it is wrong. You need to actually SHOW that it is wrong. Quantitatively. In appropriate mathematical detail.
Bignose Posted October 15, 2014 Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) because the theoritical coordinates is not the experimental coordinates Jeremy, this is a large scope question. In science, the main metric of how good an idea is: how accurate of predictions does it make. In many ways, it doesn't matter if the idea is based upon the wishing of fairies riding unicorns, the most perfect logic, or the most imperfect broken logic. If the idea predicts x, and we measure it as x.... then that idea is scientifically strong. On the other hand, if an idea predicts x and we measure y, then clearly there is an error of (x-y). Logic has failed us before. At one time, it was logical to think that earth was flat. x=flat earth. But, when we finally measured y=mostly spherical earth, then clearly the idea that predicted x was wrong. For us to believer your idea, appeals to 'logic' alone doesn't matter. Today, we measure y about the state of an atom. You are predicting x. Current best theory predicts z. We know what z-y is. Please show us what x-y is. Show us what predictions your idea makes. That is the most important thing right now. Appeals to 'logic' aren't going to get you any more support. If you want support, demonstrate that your idea makes really good predictions that agree with what is measured. Edited October 15, 2014 by Bignose
Strange Posted October 15, 2014 Posted October 15, 2014 Related to that, it is quite possible to have multiple theories to explain some phenomenon. For example, both Newtonian gravity and GR make predictions about the effects of gravity. In many cases, they are equally accurate. In some cases, GR is (significantly) more accurate. That does not mean that GR is "true" and Newton is "false". (Or that one is more "logical" than the other.) One model is more accurate than the other. That's all.
Recommended Posts