Why should proponents of alternative theories learn accepted science first?

[elfmotat]

I'm not really sure what your point is, rah. Do you really think a theory constructed by someone with little/no knowledge of accepted physics is likely to accurately describe nature? Sure it's possible, but I don't know of a single instance of some Joe Shmoe physics illiterate pulling a theory out of his rectal cavity and having it coincidentally describe some phenomenon with better accuracy than the model that was in use before.

 

If you want your theory to describe nature well, a good place to start is obviously with theories that we already know describe nature well. You new theory has to look at least somewhat like the old one, because we already know the old one works. For example, our first description of gravity was Newton's Law of Gravitation. Now we have General Relativity which agrees with experiment better than Newtonian gravity; however, by taking the low-energy limit of GR we recover good old Newtonian gravitation.

[Klaynos]

 

What do you mean by "safe"?

It's a figure of speach meaning that the probability is very high indeed.

[Ringer]

 

What do you mean by "safe"?

Read a little part after what you quoted and it should be obvious what is meant.

[uncool]

 

Here you are essentially saying "for all behaviours of nature correctly described by the model, the model is a correct description of nature". This is a tautology; it actually says nothing.

Not quite. There is an implicit assumption that the model has a nontrivial domain that are correctly described. Therefore, the times that another model will fall into that domain will often be nontrivial, too - and therefore the alternative model can be critiqued by checking it against the usual model.

=Uncool-

[rah]

It's a figure of speach meaning that the probability is very high indeed.

 

You've used the word "probability" meaning that it isn't a certainty. You're saying you aren't certain that disagreement with Newtonian mechanics within the same domain also means disagreement with observations.

 

The lack of certainty is a tacit admission that there exists the possibility of a model that has the same domain as Newtonian mechanics, disagrees with Newtonian mechanics but does not disagree with observations.

[gravitational-aether]

You don't want to go against what has been observed. Our best models within their relevant domains match the observations, therefore if you do not agree with the model you do not agree with the universe and the universe always wins.

 

What is observed is the particle always enters, travels through and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment.

 

If detectors are placed at the entrances, anywhere within, or at the exits to the slits the particle is always detected entering, traveling through and exiting a single slit.

 

This is physical evidence the particle always travels through a single slit.

 

Q. Why is the particle always detected entering, traveling through and exiting a single slit in a double slit experiment?

A. The particle always enters, travels through and exits a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.

Edited December 15, 2012 by gravitational-aether

[Semjase]

In this universe which we live in if you know all the properties of everything that is here,

then you can predict, the behavoir of anything that is here and the virtually

unlimited theoretical possiblities that could be here. If you know nothing you

can predict nothing.

If its here it had to be theoretically possible.

In the dual slit experiment the quantum properties of particles are

not fully understood, and electrons passing through a small

enough hole produces an interference pattern one electron

at a time. Due to relativity the position of a particle that is unique

to every other particle relative to the motion of the other particle,

in a narrow dual slit the moving electrons of the slit material makes

makes it theoretically possible for the charged particle

travelling through narrow dual slit to be in many different theoretical

positions with respect to every moving electron of the slit

material that interact with the electron passing through the

dual slit. In an observer created reality it is the act of the observer

that determines which theoretical possibility is made real, which

works backwards through time to determine the past.

 

supporting evidence the Wang experiment

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/841690.stm

[ACG52]

 

swansont has stated that if a new model contradicts an existing model, the new model cannot be an accurate description of nature. This implies that the existing model was a complete description of nature.

 

 

Accurate, not complete.

 

If current theory accurately describes how an aspect of the physical universe works, and the new model predicts something else, then the new model does not accurately describe the physical universe.

[Klaynos]

Theories are always bound by uncertainties and errors, you cannot be certain of anything. This is a great example of where a science education would have taught you about this so that it's not a cause of concussion.

 

Gravitational aether, this is not the place for that discussion, don't thread hijack.

[ajb]

I will just say that by "established", I mean loosely "what you would find in a text book". This typically would mean that the physics community generally agrees that the concept is "good". Any good book would have faced some level of peer review.

 

This does not mean that there are no observations of nature that currently do not completely fit within our theoretical framework. Nor does this mean that we cannot improve on our existing theories so that they closer agree with nature.

 

Anyway, most of the rebuttals of quantum theory or relativity (for example) that I come across are usually based on misunderstandings of the established theory, or they are more philosophical objections. Having a good grasp of the mathematics and physical ideas that work well is essential in furthering our knowledge.

 

We must ask rah, what is your key objection to learning what is established first?

[gravitational-aether]

Gravitational aether, this is not the place for that discussion, don't thread hijack.

 

You said, "Our best models within their relevant domains match the observations".

 

In a double slit experiment the particle is always observed entering, traveling through and exiting a single slit. If the particle is not strongly detected what is observed is an interference pattern.

 

What is not observed is the particle traveling an infinite number of paths simultaneously or not existing until it is detected or existing in many worlds simultaneously.

 

When you say the best models match the observations of a double slit experiment which model are you referring to? Copenhagen? Many worlds? Consistent theories? Ensamble? de Broglie-Bohm theory? Relational quantum mechanics? There are more models but you get the point.

 

The only model which matches observations is de Broglie-Bohm where there is a moving physical particle and a physical wave.

Edited December 15, 2012 by gravitational-aether

[Klaynos]

Copenhagen? Many worlds? Consistent theories? Ensamble? de Broglie-Bohm theory? Relational quantum mechanics? There are more models but you get the point.

 

These are interpretations not models, again an example where a science education would stop the misunderstanding.

[proximity1]

I'm not really sure what your point is, rah. Do you really think a theory constructed by someone with little/no knowledge of accepted physics is likely to accurately describe nature? Sure it's possible, but I don't know of a single instance of some Joe Shmoe physics illiterate pulling a theory out of his rectal cavity and having it coincidentally describe some phenomenon with better accuracy than the model that was in use before.

 

If you want your theory to describe nature well, a good place to start is obviously with theories that we already know describe nature well. You new theory has to look at least somewhat like the old one, because we already know the old one works. For example, our first description of gravity was Newton's Law of Gravitation. Now we have General Relativity which agrees with experiment better than Newtonian gravity; however, by taking the low-energy limit of GR we recover good old Newtonian gravitation.

 

For clarity, let's bear in mind that the thread here begins with this,

 

"Why should proponents of alternative theories learn accepted science first?"

 

So, nothing in the question states or even implies that the term "proponents" does or must refer to a present or a former or a future scientist--that is, a would-be-scientist. It says only "proponents of alternative theories" (ETA) and it qualifies "learn accepted theories" with the word "first"--thus, neither is it implied that these proponents should never learn accepted science at all. It asks, rather, why they should first learn accepted science.

 

A reader of the counter-views presented here thus far could fairly wonder if those arguing against the "position" as posed by rah mean to contend for some reason that no one, not even an a curious layman, should ever do other than to start by gaining a grounding in this "accepted science"---that would mean in practice that he could (or should) never pick up for study any text presenting an alternative theory in a field which he doesn't already know well--or a field in which standard theory he has at least a good grounding if not an expert's knowledge.

 

Personally, I think that non-scientists should be receptive and attentive to developing a knowledge of accepted science (in the fields concerned) in the course of their acquainting themselves with alternative theories and, I'd add, for emphasis, that, in my view, the best scientist-proponents of alternative theories are indeed those who themselves are at once expert in their knowledge of accepted science (in the field(s) concerned) and impart an exceptionally good critical presentation of that accepted science in the very course of their presentations of their alternative theories.

Edited December 15, 2012 by proximity1

[rah]

Theories are always bound by uncertainties and errors, you cannot be certain of anything.

 

So then you acknowledge that there is always room for a new model which has the same domain as an existing model, that disagrees with the existing model, but which agrees with observations?

[elfmotat]

that would mean in practice that he could (or should) never pick up for study any text presenting an alternative theory in a field which he doesn't already know well--or a field in which standard theory he has at least a good grounding if not an expert's knowledge.

 

That sounds like a good thing to me.

[rah]

We must ask rah, what is your key objection to learning what is established first?

 

ajb, you said before,

 

you would not want to have a theory that contradicts what is well established.

 

and I asked

 

Why not?

 

You haven't answered that question. If you answer my question first, I'll be glad to answer yours.

[elfmotat]

 

So then you acknowledge that there is always room for a new model which has the same domain as an existing model, that disagrees with the existing model, but which agrees with observations?

Of course! Nobody is claiming otherwise. It's called "a better model." General relativity is a better model than Newtonian gravity. What we're saying is that the new model is going to look somewhat like the old model (because we already know the old model agrees well with experiment).

[rah]

For clarity, let's bear in mind that the thread here begins with this,

 

"Why should proponents of alternative theories learn accepted science first?"

 

That isn't what the thread begins with, that's the title of the thread. It's also a mischaracterisation of the issue at hand. I don't know who split this thread from its parent and gave it this title but they haven't titled it well.

 

A better title would be "Why is it better to learn accepted ideas before anything else?"

 

The main issue is learning "accepted" ideas, and the reasons why it is "better" to do that than something else. The something else could be learning about alternative theories but might not be.

[elfmotat]

 

ajb, you said before,

 

 

and I asked

 

 

You haven't answered that question. If you answer my question first, I'll be glad to answer yours.

 

He means "contradict" in the sense that the theory's predictions are completely different than those of the established theory / experimental data. He doesn't mean "contradict" in the sense that it produces slightly more accurate predictions than the established model. "Contradict" here is a bad thing.

[rah]

Of course! Nobody is claiming otherwise.

 

Actually, this is exactly what swansont claims:

 

If a new model contradicts an existing one, and that existing model properly predicts/describes nature, by the transitive property the new model contradicts nature.

 

 

 

 

He means "contradict"

 

That's your interpretation; you're assuming that you have a correct understanding of what ajb meant. I can interpret his words and assume that my interpretation is correct as well. However, I think it's best for ajb to say in his own words what his reasoning is.

Edited December 15, 2012 by rah

[Klaynos]

 

So then you acknowledge that there is always room for a new model which has the same domain as an existing model, that disagrees with the existing model, but which agrees with observations?

No, they would agree within their error bounds, which is agreeing. Again a science education would teach you this.

 

 

Completely missing the point is a fundamental requirement in mainstream physics.

 

 

No, I think you've missed the point of science, it's not about the interpretations, they're just stories which make humans feel better. Most of the rest of your post is an attempt at a thread hijack so I've ignored it or other misunderstandings.

[J.C.MacSwell]

 

I must say I find this to be quite an extraordinary statement. Can I ask what, precisely, you meant by "better off"?

I think you would be better off in the same sense that, if looking for a tree from which to saw lumber to make a house, you would head for a known forrest, rather than close your eyes and grope randomly for a tree.

[rah]

So then you acknowledge that there is always room for a new model which has the same domain as an existing model, that disagrees with the existing model, but which agrees with observations?

 

 

No, they would agree within their error bounds, which is agreeing.

 

I'm not entirely clear about what you're saying here. What things would agree within their error bounds?

[Arete]

I'm not entirely clear about what you're saying here. What things would agree within their error bounds?

 

A scientific theory is never accepted in absolution, as new observations can lead to an alternative explanation and the chance that a better explanation of the currently known observations might be found are always entertained.

 

To know if a new explanation fits the observations better than the existing one requires a thorough understanding of the currently accepted explanation. Without that understanding, there's no way one can know if their new theory fits the data better than what it is trying to replace. As such, a complete understanding of current theory is essential to evaluating the relevance of new proposals.

[rah]

A scientific theory is never accepted in absolution, as new observations can lead to an alternative explanation and the chance that a better explanation of the currently known observations might be found are always entertained.

 

The problem is that there are people here, namely swansont and Klaynos, who do not entertain this.